Preamble

The House met at Eleven o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — SOUTHERN AND NORTHERN RHODESIA

Constitutions

Mr. Brockway: asked the First Secretary of State what representations he has received from the United Nations or its committee on colonialism regarding the constitution of Southern Rhodesia.

The First Secretary of State (Mr. R. A. Butler): The hon. Member will be aware of the United Nations General Assembly Resolutions of 28th June, 12th October and 31st October, 1962, on this question. The Secretary General has also drawn attention to the terms of the Resolution of 31st October by correspondence. The Committee of Twenty-four also passed a Resolution on 8th April in which it was inter alia accepted that a sub-committee should come to London on 22nd April to represent the Committee's views to Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. Brockway: Whilst not wishing to anticipate the statement which I understand the right hon. Gentleman will be making later in view of this very grave situation in Southern Rhodesia, more grave, probably, than anything which has happened in our sphere in Africa since the war, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he would not consider that the good offices of the United Nations might make a contribution to its solution?

Mr. Butler: We do not recognise that the United Nations has powers of intervention in the affairs of Southern Rhodesia. All I can say is that we are meeting the Committee when it comes here.

Mr. Fell: That is what was worrying me. I thought I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that we were to meet the Committee. That is what I just cannot really understand—

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member so far has made a statement. This is the time for Questions. Does the hon. Member wish to ask a Question?

Mr. Fell: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I thought a question was implicit in what I was saying.

Mr. H. Wilson: May I ask the First Secretary whether he will make it clear that all facilities will be given by the Government to this Committee when it comes?

Mr. Butler: We met the previous Committee which came over and several of Her Majesty's Ministers put themselves at the disposal of the Committee, and on this occasion we shall meet this Committee and do our best to answer its questions.

Mr. P. Williams: Is my right hon. Friend aware that some of us suspect that the United Nations have not got a tremendous amount of experience of administration in Africa, and while there is no particular reason why we should not try to open their eyes to the truth, responsibility does rest with the Government and no one else in this matter?

Mr. Butler: The primary responsibility rests with the Government of Southern Rhodesia, because we ourselves have limited powers of intervention under the constitution as it is now.

Mr. Wall: asked the First Secretary of State what answer has been given to the request of the Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia for independence.

Mr. Strachey: asked the First Secretary of State whether he will now give an assurance that independence will not be granted to either Southern or Northern Rhodesia until new and more representative constitutions are in operation in these territories.

Mr. R. A. Butler: As regards Northern Rhodesia, I have nothing to add to what I said on 1st April about my discussions with Elected Ministers on the subject of further constitutional advance. The territory has not yet reached the stage of internal self-government.
As regards Southern Rhodesia, I have now concluded my talks with Mr. Dupont, the Minister of Justice, and I have sent a reply to the letter which Mr. Winston Field sent me making a formal request for independence to be granted to Southern Rhodesia on the first date on which either of the other territories is allowed to secede or obtains its independence. The Government are publishing this correspondence in a White Paper which will be available in the Vote Office at 11 o'clock this morning.
The reply indicates that we accept in principle that all the territories will proceed through the normal processes to independence. It goes on to point out that it would not in any event be possible to make Southern Rhodesia an independent country in the full sense of the word while she remains in the Federation which is not itself independent. Her Majesty's Government emphasise their view that there should be early discussions not only about the broad lines of a future relation. ship between the territories but also the transitional arrangements that will be required. Her Majesty's Government consider that it is only when such discussions have taken place that Southern Rhodesia, having regard to its membership of the Federation, may expect to be in the constitutional position to move to full independence.
Her Majesty's Government would also expect to convene a conference to discuss financial, defence, constitutional and other matters, which always have to be settled before self-governing dependencies are granted independence.

Mr. Wall: May I ask my right hon. Friend to give Mr. Field a clear answer, as he gave to Mr. Kaunda? Is he worried about the coming visit of the United Nations Committee? Is he aware that he will not get the conversations unless he makes up his mind to say either "Yes" or "No" to Mr. Field? When can we expect a positive answer on this vitally important matter?

Mr. Butler: It would be advisable if my hon. Friend would read the letter in toto. It not only sets out the difficulties which I think are legally sound, about the processes prior to the granting of full independence, but also raises with the Government of Southern Rhodesia the question of partial independence within

the Federation, which they themselves have raised, and offers to discuss this with the Government of Southern Rhodesia. Therefore, I do not think my hon. Friend need jump to the conclusion that there will not be further discussions between our two Governments on this very intricate matter.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Strachey.

Mr. Strachey: rose—

Mr. Fell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am somewhat concerned about this. Just now my right hon. Friend said that if an hon. Friend of mine would read the letter he would then be able to form a judgment. But I think we were under the impression that my right hon. Friend was going to make a statement today at the end of Questions. I do not know whether this is still so, but if not, it puts us in an awfully difficult position if he is simply going to say that we should refer to a letter which we have not had a chance of reading.

Mr. Speaker: As far as I can discover, that does not raise any point of order. Mr. Strachey.

Mr. Strachey: Is the First Secretary aware that it is already clear that his statement will satisfy no one on either side of the House, and it certainly does not satisfy us, though for reasons opposite to those of the hon. Member who has just asked a question? Is he aware that in his first paragraph he gives no assurance whatever to Northern Rhodesia that it will proceed towards internal self-government—not independence, which is not proposed as the next step by anyone, but to real internal self-government—and that this is a most unfortunate omission for which we see no justification whatever? Is he further aware—this is the main point—that there is not a word in his statement of assurance that independence will not be granted to Southern Rhodesia until the constitution has been liberalised and until there is a franchise which enables the Africans to take part effectively in the Parliamentary life of that country? Indeed, there is a direct implication in his statement, is there not, that the only thing standing in the way of Southern Rhodesia's complete independence under its present white dictatorship is the temporary winding-up process of the Federation? Is the right hon.


Gentleman aware that the attitude revealed in his statement today will receive the unrelenting opposition of this side of the House?

Mr. Butler: I indicated in my Answer that I had discussed the next stages towards self-government and eventual independence with the elected Ministers of Northern Rhodesia. That remains a matter about which I am in contact with them.
As to the second part of the right hon. Gentleman's question, my letter indicates that discussions at the independence conference would cover, besides finance and defence, constitutional and other questions, and Her Majesty's Government would feel free to raise any matter which they thought fit.

Sir H. Harrison: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in certain countries where we have granted independence we have seen the outcome of "one party" or "one man" rule? Would he agree with me that what is important in any country is that one can have a change of Government by peaceful means—by the ballot box? That is the situation in Southern Rhodesia. The franchise may not be as wide as some of us want, but at least we have had there a change of Government by peaceful means, and is not this sufficient for the granting of complete independence to Southern Rhodesia?

Mr. Butler: There are differences of opinion about the nature of the franchise. It is clear that if the property qualification is achieved a great deal could be done to liberalise the constitution, even under the present franchise under the present constitution. But these are precisely the sort of matters which may well be raised in further discussions.

Mr. Grimond: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether in the White Paper, which I have not yet been able to read, the allegations of Sir Roy Welensky against Her Majesty's Government are answered?
Secondly, when the right hon. Gentleman says that there will be a move by due process towards independence, is it not true that there is no precedent for giving independence to a territory for which we have been responsible unless there is a broadly-based democratic franchise? Although the right hon. Gentleman says

that the franchise is in doubt, there is no doubt that the majority are disfranchised. If he is going to break with this precedent, will he consult the Commonwealth?
Lastly, may I ask whether the common services do not revert to Her Majesty's Government? Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the Government will not make further arrangements for these services until he is assured that a more liberal constitution is being inaugurated for these territories?

Mr. Butler: In answer to the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, the White Paper does not refer to Sir Roy Welensky. It deals with the letter of the Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia.
With regard to "due processes", I have already said that constitutional and other questions will be on the agenda for discussion at the independence conference.
As regards the common services, I have no further statement to make pending the reply of the Southern Rhodesian Government.

Mr. F. M. Bennett: As I have managed by the skin of my teeth to see the White Paper, I wonder whether I may ask some questions specifically on it. It would appear that there has been an attempt by Mr. Winston Field to tie independence to secession of any one of the territories, which my right hon. Friend declines to accept for reasons given in the White Paper, and which it would take too much time to quote. Also, there would seem to be an attempt to tie it up with the obtaining of independence by other territories. An answer to that point does not seem to be given in the White Paper. Does my right hon. Friend accept the principle that none of these territories should obtain independence one before the other but that there should be a general moving forward?

Mr. Butler: The territories are at very varying stages of advance. Nyasaland, Northern Rhodesia and South Rhodesia are all quite different. Southern Rhodesia has been virtually a self-governing Colony for forty years, Nyasaland had a self-governing constitution recently, and Northern Rhodesia has still to move into that position. Therefore, I could not guarantee that all the dates


will be actually coincidental. I do not think I can say anything further in answer to my hon. Friend.

Mr. H. Wilson: While we all understand the need for the right hon. Gentleman to be equivocal about his intentions because of the conflicting pressures on him from his hon. Friends, some of whom take one view and some take another, will he give the House a clear assurance that there will be no question of granting independence to Southern Rhodesia until the country has a constitution which enables the mass of the people there to govern themselves? Is he aware that there should be no question of granting independence under a constitution where 250,000 people have the right to rule 3 million people?

Mr. Butler: I can make no further statement on that subject today beyond my reference to the fact that we are asking for, and, indeed, insisting upon, an independence conference to take place before the final decision is made—a conference at which Her Majesty's Government are free to raise any matter which they think fit.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot have a miniature debate at the beginning of Question Time.

Oral Answers to Questions — COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS

Supplementary Estimate

Mr. Ridley: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations why a Supplementary Estimate of half as much again in Class II, Vote 5, was not originally foreseen.

The Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. John Tilney): I would refer my hon. Friend to the full and detailed explanations in the Fourth Report from the Estimates Committee. There is nothing I can add to this.

Mr. Ridley: But what steps has my hon. Friend taken to ensure that this year's Estimate contains the right sums for the Indus Basin Fund, and, in view of the likely doubling of the cost of this scheme, can he also say whether Her Majesty's Government's contribution will also have to be doubled, and, if so, where

the money will be found for balance of payments purposes?

Mr. Tilney: My hon. Friend will realise that we are very much in the hands of the Commonwealth Governments for estimates of their requirements from the various grant and loan moneys which have been agreed long beforehand. It is very difficult, therefore, at the early stage of the Estimates to know exactly what these sums will be.

Mr. Ridley: Surely my hon. Friend should ascertain what sums are available from the surpluses on balance of payments before promising to invest these very large sums abroad? Is not that the right way round?

Mr. Tilney: But my hon. Friend will realise that, for instance, we granted a loan of £4 million to the East African Common Services Organisation, which was announced to the House on 19th November, 1962, and of that amount only £1·372 million has so far been drawn. We are very much in the hands of Commonwealth Governments in this matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION

Primary School, Barnby Dun

Mr. Kelley: asked the Minister of Education when the old Army hut at Barnby Dun County Primary School will be replaced by a new building.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education (Mr. Christopher Chataway): I understand that the authority does not expect to carry out this project in the current year's minor works programme unless other more urgent projects fall out.

Mr. Kelley: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this building was used as an Army billet in the First World War and condemned more than twenty years ago? It is an eyesore in this pleasant-looking village and an impediment to education progress. Will he see that it is removed as soon as possible?

Mr. Chataway: I am aware of the need for a replacement at this school, but it is for the local education authority to compile its minor works programme within the limit of the sums allocated


year by year by my right hon. Friend. It has not felt free, within the limit this year, to include this project.

School Meals Centres

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Minister of Education what was his reply to the letter from Mr. James Roberts, Salford Director of Civic Welfare, proposing that, in this and other cities, the use of school meals centres be permitted as luncheon clubs for elderly people after 1 p.m., when no longer required for school purposes, so that hot meals may be made available for old-age pensioners, particularly those living alone.

Mr. Chataway: My right hon. Friend has sent to the hon. Member a copy of his reply to Mr. Roberts.

Mr. Allaun: While thanking the Minister for his long and sympathetic letter, I ask whether he will now consult other Ministers concerned about sending to all local authorities a circular encouraging such luncheon clubs wherever practicable by co-operation among various council departments, especially as £45 million a year is, quite rightly, provided for children's meals but practically nothing for old people. Will the Minister consider grant aid for such meals?

Mr. Chataway: While I am sure that my right hon. Friend is willing to consider the hon. Getleman's suggestion, there are, as the hon. Gentleman knows from the letter my right hon. Friend sent him, a number of difficulties to iron out. Probably the proper way to proceed would be for the local education authority to have discussions with the bodies concerned to see whether these difficulties can be removed.

Dr. King: The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the excellent work of the "meals-on-wheels" service. Will he give serious consideration to my hon. Friend's splendid suggestion that this service might have facilities in school kitchens and dining rooms, where they are available without interference with the education service?

Mr. Chataway: Yes, Sir.

Teacher Exchanges (United States)

Dr. King: asked the Minister of Education if he will increase the number

of exchanges of teachers with the United States of America.

Mr. Chataway: No, Sir. This is a valuable scheme, but the conditions have only recently been revised to take account of the growing financial difficulties experienced in the past few years by British teachers in the United States. My right hon. Friend has told the British Interchange Committee that he is ready to have a look at numbers again later on. In the meantime he has been informed that the English-speaking Union of the U.S.A. have generously offered £4,000 for the coming year which will enable another eight exchanges to be made, bringing the total for 1963–64 to over 80.

Dr. King: I appreciate what has been done to make the financial conditions better for our teachers under this scheme. But is the hon. Gentleman aware that this year there were more than 100 suitable applicants, in the view of the Selection Committee, but that over one-quarter will have to be rejected? Since it is enormously valuable to our teachers to see American education, will the hon. Gentleman ask the Minister to take another look at this to see whether it might not be possible to step up this year the number he is prepared to back financially?

Mr. Chataway: I think that there is little possibility of further increasing the number this year, but I know that my right hon. Friend is willing to talk to the hon. Gentleman about it, as, indeed, he has stated that he is willing to talk about this again with the British Interchange Committee.

Sir H. Harrison: Is my hon. Friend satisfied that under this new regulation the finances of our exchange teachers will be on a par with those of exchange teachers from other countries visiting the United States? Is he further aware that when I was in the United States last time a number of our teachers complained to me that they were worse off vis-à-vis than other foreign teachers? Has that been rectified?

Mr. Chataway: We accepted that the grant of £375 was inadequate, so the rate has been increased to £470 for teachers now in the United States, and it will be


£475 next year. I understand that this will put them on a much more equal footing with other visiting teachers.

Grammar Schools, East Suffolk

Sir H. Harrison: asked the Minister of Education how many grammar schools in East Suffolk have been closed in the last 12 years; how many have had major alterations; and how many it is proposed to close.

Mr. Chataway: One boys' school has been closed and replaced by a mixed school; one school has moved into new buildings and five have had major alterations; one school will be closed as soon as the pupils can be accommodated elsewhere.

Sir H. Harrison: Is my hon. Friend aware that the East Suffolk County Council has a very fine record in the provision of new places and in the reconditioning of primary and secondary schools, but that there is a feeling abroad in the county that it is not so concerned about places in grammar schools? I am glad, therefore, to have had his reply. Will he ask the Minister to bear in mind that in any future building programme grammar school places should have a higher priority in this county?

Mr. Chataway: Yes, Sir. My hon. and gallant Friend will have noticed that five grammar schools during this period have been given major alterations.

School Building, Bradford

Mr. McLeavy: asked the Minister of Education what were the reductions made by his Department in the school-building programme submitted by the city of Bradford Education Authority for the year 1963–64; what further reductions were made for the year 1964–65; and what representations he has received about these reductions from the local education authority.

Mr. Chataway: Proposals submitted by the Bradford Education Authority for 1963–64 totalled £1,158,000 and approvals about £340,000. Corresponding figures for 1964–65 were £1,100,000 and £333,000. My right hon. Friend has received and replied to a letter from the authority about its 1964–65 programme.

Mr. McLeavy: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this is a serious reduction for

1964–65 and that on the art side there has bean no allocation by the Ministry since 1961–62? Is he further aware that although the great importance of this industrial city in the North requires the best possible education facilities, these are being seriously interfered with by the lack of school accommodation?
Will the hon. Gentleman ask the Minister to look at this matter personally and to review the allocation made for the next financial year? Furthermore, will the Minister give further consideration to the question of art, because, after all, we do not want to see the very high standard of art training in Bradford interfered with by lack of accommodation?

Mr. Chataway: My right hon. Friend is aware of the needs of Bradford Education Authority, and I will bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman says about art. However, the approved major building programmes during the five-year period for Bradford totals about £2¼ million. That is a very fair share of the available resources.

Swimming and Life Saving

Mr. Wainwright: asked the Minister of Education if he is aware of the growing concern regarding the loss of life each year of a number of schoolchildren due to drowning; and if he will take steps to ensure, as soon as possible, that every school child, upon reaching a suitable age, shall have the opportunity to be taught swimming and life-saving.

Mr. Chataway: My right hon. Friend is in sympathy with what the hon. Member seeks to achieve and he knows that schools and local education authorities are well aware of the importance of teaching children to swim. Both teaching and facilities are increasing, but he must leave to local discretion the extent to which these are provided for every child.

Mr. Wainwright: Does not the hon. Gentleman reaiise that shortage of money is holding back many local authorities from building baths attached to the schools? Most children losing their lives in inland rivers and ponds could not swim. Will not he do something more to encourage local authorities to provide these facilities? Even a small swimming


pool would be very advantageous. Will he also consider the effect of teaching lifesaving to children?

Mr. Chataway: The number of school swimming pools is increasing, but covered swimming pools are expensive to build and school swimming often has to take place in public baths. That will have to continue to be the case for some time.

Teachers' Salaries

Dr. King: asked the Minister of Education when he proposes to announce his acceptance or rejection of the recommendations of the Burnham Technical Committee, which were drawn up in January and submitted to him on 20th March.

Mr. Willey: asked the Minister of Education whether he will make a further statement on the salaries of teachers in establishments of further education.

The Minister of Education (Sir Edward Boyle): I wrote yesterday to the Chairman of the Burnham Committee to ask that the Burnham Technical Committee should reconsider the proposals they had put to inc. I sent the Committee, in confidence, some alternative proposals for their consideration.

Dr. King: Is the Minister aware that technical education is becoming of increasing importance and, that being so, it is vital that nothing should be done to perpetuate the idea that there is something inferior in the status of technical education? That being so, as he knew what he was to do to the Technical Committee, namely, that he was to do exactly the same as to the main Committee, would it not have been courteous to have informed it more quickly?

Sir E. Boyle: I entirely agree with what the hon. Member says on the importance of technical education. The point is that some modification of the Technical Committee's proposals will be needed in accordance with Burnham's own principles to keep them in line with the general principles which I outlined to the Burnham main Committee for primary and secondary teachers. Consistent with the principles which I have announced earlier, I have proposed increases beyond those recommended by the Technical Committee at almost every point in the scales for

lecturers and above. There is no question of treating technical teachers unfairly.

Mr. Willey: Will the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that he will not take the steps in this case which he took in respect of the main Committee?

Sir E. Boyle: We can discuss all this when we have the debate after Christmas—I apologise, I should have said after Easter. It would be entirely in accordance with the principles of the Burnham Committee which has always recommended a common basic scale for teachers in schools and in further education establishments.

Mr. Willey: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that in the interests of the profession and education generally it would be bettor to defer this until after Christmas?

Sir E. Boyle: I certainly regard the steps I have taken here as entirely in the interests of technical education as a whole. and I think that when hon. Members see the scales proposed they will come to that conclusion.

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Minister of Education if he will give an assurance that, in future, after engaging in discussion with the Burnham Committee on salary scales for the teaching profession, he will not exercise a veto on what he regards as an unsatisfactory decision by that Committee.

Sir E. Boyle: It would not be right for me to anticipate the outcome of the discussions I have already proposed to have with all the appropriate bodies concerned about revised machinery and procedure for negotiating teachers' salaries. I am willing to see every issue, including the Minister of Education's statutory powers in these matters, fully and frankly examined.

Mr. Shinwell: What is the point of having the Burnham Committee for negotiations if the right hon. Gentleman is to intervene and vary its decisions? While he may have a legal right to accept or reject a decision of the Burnham Committee, where is his legal right to vary a decision? Is it not time that the right hon. Gentleman understood that he has plenty on his plate without interfering in matters which are not his business?

Sir E. Boyle: Whatever differences there may be in the House about the present situation, there is widespread recognition—and widespread recognition on both sides of the House—that the present arrangements for negotiating teachers' salaries are unsatisfactory. Views were expressed to that effect on both sides of the House in the debate which we had a week or two ago.
In answer to the right hon. Gentleman's specific question, I should like to make this plain, because there has been some comment on this subject outside the House: when I saw a deputation from the Burnham Committee, I said that I thought that we might consider some solution which did not involve legislation, but nothing I said on that occasion to that deputation was intended in any way to prejudice either the course or the outcome of the discussions to which I have referred in answer to this Question.

Mr. Shinwell: Why was it that the right hon. Gentleman discovered that there was a reason for revising the scheme relating to salary scales only after the Burnham Committee had made its decision? Had he no idea about the need for this beforehand? If he had, why did he not adopt the idea before the Burnham Committee came to its decision?

Sir E. Boyle: With all respect to the right hon. Gentleman, he is asking questions which go considerably wider than the Question on the Order Paper, but I will answer that because I do not want to be discourteous in any way. I made it plain in my original letter to the chairman of the Burnham Committee that I intervened as soon as it become clear that the provisional agreement was to be ratified by a majority of both sides of the Committee. My predecessor, Lord Eccles, was blamed in 1961 for intervening too soon, and the right hon. Gentleman now blames me for intervening too late. All I can say is that I intervened at what I though was the appropriate point following my statutory responsibilities under Section 89.

Mr. Awbery: asked the Minister of Education if it is his intention to accept the decisions of the Burnham Committee in the future; and if the trade

union and local education authorities have been consulted about the changes proposed.

Sir E. Boyle: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I have just given to the hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell). I have not yet proposed any changes. I shall certainly be consulting the parties he mentions in the discussions I intend to have before long.

Mr. Awbery: Is the Minister aware that it is more than 40 years since the Burnham Committee was established, and that during that time it has worked very satisfactorily without interference from anyone, and that it has acted as a negotiating committee and not as an advisory committee? The Minister has now varied its decision. Will he tell it that in future it is to be only an advisory committee and not a negotiating committee, so that it will know exactly what its powers are?

Sir E. Boyle: It would not be right for me to anticipate either the course or the outcome of the discussions which I hope to have with all the parties concerned. However, it is a very big assumption to suppose that machinery which has existed for 40 years will necessarily, without any amendment, serve the circumstances of the 1960s, when education plays a much bigger part in the life of the nation than it did 40 years ago.

Mr. Willey: In view of the dictatorial way in which the right hon. Gentleman has behaved and his flagrant disregard for negotiating machinery, not only in this case but generally, and as one cannot behave like this in Britain, does he not know that it will be impossible to get proper discussions about the future of the Burnham Committee?

Sir E. Boyle: Before saying that again, the hon. Member should read my original letter to the chairman of the Burnham Committee, which was not dictatorial in tone. It made a number of suggestions in principle, none of which was agreed to by the Burnham Committee. It did not meet me at all, but that was its right. I therefore said that in order to get over the immediate salary difficulty I proposed to introduce legislation to end the deadlock, but


that I wanted to have full discussions with everybody concerned about the future of the Burnham machinery. I repeat that in the recent debate in the House there was widespread recognition by hon. Members of the need for some change and some re-examination of these machineries and procedures.

Mr. Awbery: asked the Minister of Education, in view of the fact that the salaries of teachers at colleges of advanced technology are now being paid out of the colleges' funds, granted directly by him, if they will continue to be governed by the Burnham scale as hitherto.

Sir E. Boyle: It is the Government's policy that the salaries of teachers in colleges of advanced technology should be related to those of university teachers. A full review of salaries in both universities and colleges of advanced technology is about to be carried out by the National Incomes Commission. In the meantime certain interim adjustments are being made to the colleges of advanced technology salaries as a consequence of the adjustments made recently in the university scales This means that as from the 1st April salaries in colleges of advanced technology will not be identical with those in colleges covered by the Burnham Report.

Mr. Awbery: Is the Minister aware that there is some confusion among teachers of advanced technology about who is to negotiate for them in future? Will he tell us exactly what Committee will negotiate for them in future?

Sir E. Boyle: No, Sir. I cannot anticipate the future. The point is that the Burnham reports have not been binding on colleges of advanced technology ever since they achieved direct grant status in 1962, but Burnham salaries have been paid pending a full-scale review. We are in a new situation because of the transfer of status. The exact adjustments to be made to the salaries of teachers in colleges of advanced technology are still under consideration, but any increase will be dated from 1st April.

Certificate of Secondary Education

Mr. Willey: asked the Minister of Education what progress has been made regarding the methods of examining for the Certificate of Secondary Education.

Sir E. Boyle: The Secondary School Examinations Council is making good progress with proposals for the recognition of regional examining boards for the Certificate of Secondary Education. It is also considering the question of standards, and I hope to receive its advice on both of these questions shortly.

Mr. Willey: Will the right lion. Gentleman keep a careful eye on the developments of this examination? Is he aware that there is a good deal of apprehension that if this examination develops as exclusive and entirely separate from the G.C.E. O-level it may have a bad effect on the schools? Will he bear that in mind and see that it is avoided when the new examination is introduced?

Sir E. Boyle: I am glad to be able to agree entirely with what the hon. Gentleman has just said. This is an experiment and an examination of great importance, and I am keeping a very careful eye on it. There are likely to be 13 examining bodies covering England and Wales. The Certificate of Secondary Education Standing Committee has been considering each proposal on its merits, and I think that the geographical coverage will be satisfactory. The time may not be far ahead when there will be sixth-formers who have reached sixth forms through this examination rather than the G.C.E. O-level, but I will certainly watch the situation very carefully.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING

Rating, Folkestone

Mr. Costain: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs, in view of the fact that the revised valuation of bungalow properties in the Folkestone district has risen disproportionately compared with that of adajacent houses, if he will instruct his proposed Committee of inquiry to take this special feature into account.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. F. V. Corfield): The Committee's task will be to measure the impact of rates on different sections of the community, and they will certainly consider the effect on occupiers of small houses of high assessments.
Questions whether properties have been correctly assessed will be outside the scope of the inquiry; and the proper course for anyone who thinks that his new assessment is higher than the value of the property warrants is to appeal.

Mr. Costain: Does my hon. Friend appreciate that these bungalows are occupied by people who have come from industrial areas, releasing houses, and have moved into bungalows in this area in the belief that they would be able to five there within their means, and that cases have been brought to my notice in which assessments have risen fourfold? Why cannot the Committee take these factors into account?

Mr. Corfield: I think I have made it clear that that is what the Committee will take into account.

Subsidies

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what was the nature of his reply to the recent requests from 23 North-West local authorities for a minimum 100 per cent. increase in housing subsidies, for low interest loans to local authorities for housing and for his reception of a deputation on these matters.

Mr. Corfield: My right hon. Friend has suggested to the authorities that they should arrange to discuss their problems with officers of the Department. But he has repeated that it would, in the Government's view, be wrong to make housing loans available at a specially low rate of interest, and he does not accept that the existing subsidies, if properly applied, are insufficient to allow authorities to continue building houses which can be let at rents their tenants can afford.

M. Allaun: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that interest rates are now so crippling that in many areas each new council house or flat means a deficit of £60 a year for 60 years, or £3,600 after taking into consideration the existing subsidy? Why should tenants and ratepayers be made to suffer in this way and councils be made the scapegoats for financial policies for which the Government are responsible?

Mr. Corfield: The hon. Gentleman knows that my right hon. Friend

answered a Question put to him by the hon. Gentleman on 13th November last, and that since then if interest rates have changed at all they have gone down, but I remind the hon. Gentleman that the deficit, whether it is £60 or anything else, is also controlled by the rent policies adopted by local authorities.

Rates, Kent

Mr. Lubbock: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs whether he will publish details of the new rates for each local authority in Kent in the year 1963–64.

Mr. Corfield: Yes, Sir. Rate pound-ages for all rating authorities are published each year for the Department by Her Majesty's Stationery Office in "Rates and Rateable Values".

Mr. Lubbock: As these figures are apparently so readily available, will the hon. Gentleman make sure that they are drawn to the attention of his right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, who has been inventing stories about rates in Kent to suit his own political purposes?

Mr. Corfield: When the hon. Gentleman says that these figures are readily available, I remind him that they are only readily available when we have all the returns from the local authorities, and these are not yet complete.

Mr. Walker: Can my hon. Friend say whether these figures show the previous year's rates, so that the electors of orpington can calculate the increase that takes place when the Liberals take over?

Mr. Corfield: I am not sure that the figures are shown in the same publication, but, it not, they will be available from the publication for the previous year.

Mr. M. Stewart: Is the Joint Parliamentary Secretary aware that if he goes on giving the kind of answer that he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) about housing, the rates will continue to rise and he will be responsible?

Mr. Lubbock: Will the Joint Parliamentary Secretary draw the attention of his right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to the fact that, in the rates which have been published, those in the local


authorities represented by the Tories in the immediate vicinity of Orpington are all higher than those which obtain—

Mr. Speaker: Order. There must be some limit to this exercise. It is not the duty of the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to give instructions or information to the Leader of the House.

Oral Answers to Questions —  TRADE AND COMMERCE

The Hartlepools

Commander Kerans: asked the President of the Board of Trade how many applications for Board of Trade Advisory Committee assistance for firms endeavouring to set up industry in The Hartlepools are under consideration by his Department.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. David Price): The Board of Trade Advisory Committee has one application under consideration and is awaiting information from the applicants on three more.

Commander Kerans: Will the Parliamentary Secretary do what he can to speed up these applications when they are received?

Mr. Price: As I think I indicated in my reply, the Board of Trade is awaiting information, and any speeding up has to come from the firms rather than from B.O.T.A.C.

Oral Answers to Questions — NUCLEAR TESTS

Mr. M. Foot: asked the Prime Minister whether the report of his scientific advisers on the adverse effects of high-altitude tests will be made public.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): This report has just been received. I am not yet in a position to make any statement as regards its publication.

Mr. Foot: As the whole world and this House in particular was grossly misled about the effects of the high altitude explosions when they took place, does not the Prime Minister think that it would be highly desirable to have the greatest exchange of scientific information about what these high-altitude tests really achieved? Will he give serious consideration to publishing the whole report?

The Prime Minister: Certainly. The first purpose was to draw the attention of the United States authorities to the report of this very distinguished body, and then, together with the members of that body, to ask whether publication is to be authorised.

Mr. Jeger: Can the Prime Minister say whether the report contains any information from Russian scientists about the effect of their tests, because there is a widespread opinion that the Russian high-altitude tests are beneficial to mankind and conducive to peace?

Mr. M. Foot: asked the Prime Minister when he proposes to visit Geneva to assist in the talks about a nuclear test ban and other measures of disarmament.

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the announcement of President Kennedy's visit to Berlin in June, he will propose a meeting between President Kennedy, Mr. Khrushchev and himself in Berlin to discuss the major points of disagreement at the Geneva Disarmament Conference as suggested in the joint message to Mr. Khrushchev, dated 14th February, 1962, and following twelve months of systematic negotiations.

The Prime Minister: I have nothing to add to what I told the House on 21st March and 2nd April.

Mr. Foot: If the Prime Minister is not proposing to take this initiative, can he tell us what initiative he is proposing to take to try to assist in securing an agreement on a nuclear test ban? Does not the Prime Minister agree that it would be an appalling tragedy if, as agreement is so near, something should interfere to prevent it happening? Will he make more energetic efforts to try to secure general agreement?

The Prime Minister: I agree that it would be a great tragedy if these efforts were to fail, and I am in close consultation with President Kennedy as to what would be the best method of trying to achieve success.

Mr. Henderson: Would not the Prime Minister agree that the Pope's Encyclical issued yesterday expressed the widespread concern felt in all countries about the failure to end the present deadlock at the Geneva Disarmament Conference? Would not the


Prime Minister agree that it is most unlikely that the present disagreements in Geneva will be resolved at the present level of negotiations and that it is necessary for the three heads of Government to deal with some of the problems, such as the number of on-site inspections, on the basis of practical commonsense and not on the basis of delaying tactics? Will the Prime Minister take the initiative to impress on President Kennedy and Mr. Khrushchev that the three heads of Government should meet to see whether some advance can be made?

The Prime Minister: Of course, this is one method which is in my mind, but I do not think it is fair to talk about delaying tactics by the Western side. The Russians accepted the principle of free inspections in 1960. They then withdrew it and spent three years before they came back to it. The Americans originally asked for twenty, and after discussions their experts have come down to seven, so I do not think it is fair to say that the delaying tactics have been on the part of the Western Powers.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLICLY-FINANCED PRIVATE COMPANIES (POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS)

Mr. Marsh: asked the Prime Minister (1) if he will make financial aid to companies from public funds under existing legislation conditional upon their willingness to publish full details of any moneys expended by them in support of any political party or campaign;
(2) if he will introduce legislation to prevent companies in receipt of public funds under existing legislation making financial contributions to political parties or campaigns.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir.

Mr. Marsh: Is the Prime Minister aware that tens of millions of £s of taxpayers' money is being poured into private enterprise? Does he think it impertinent that taxpayers who may disagree with such campaigns should ask to what extent their money is being spent for this purpose? Does not the Prime Minister also think that a system which enables Conservative Ministers to make grants running into tens of millions of

£s to private companies, who in turn are in a position to use some of that money for political campaigns in the interests of his Ministers, is open to some abuse?

The Prime Minister: I do not think that there is any connection between the two matters. I am always being pressed, chiefly by the trade unions, councils and Members opposite, to make more money available to private enterprise.

Mr. H. Wilson: I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman has been pressed to do that from this side of the House. We say that where money is pumped into a company the State, like any prudent private investor, should take some share in the profits and some share in the control. The point raised in this Question, which I am sure the Prime Minister realises, is whether he is aware that it is highly undesirable that private enterprise firms should think that they can come along and get money by standing outside the Treasury with their begging bowls and then use some of that money, or some of their private resources, for supporting the Government party?

The Prime Minister: The last sentence of the right hon. Gentleman's question referred to these firms using some of that money, and then to using some of their private resources. They are not connected. The right hon. Gentleman slipped into the truth there. When the right hon. Gentleman describes what we are asked to do under the Local Employment Act as standing outside the Treasury with begging bowls, I hope that the constituents of the North-East, the North-West and Scotland will take note of that.

Mr. Wilson: Is the Prime Minister aware that, not for the first time, of course, he has tried to falsify what has happened? The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well the position under the Local Employment Act and how much more we did than his Government ever thought of doing. Is he not aware that, quite outside the Local Employment Act, the Government have been handing out money to these companies and have been wasting the time of the House with the Cunard Bill, which was then treated with contempt by the Cunard Company, and the steel firms, and the rest? Is he aware that he cannot ride off on his old North-East horse here? Is he aware that the Government have been pumping


money into these firms and that if these firms are spending their own resources in backing the Conservative Party that means that they have to borrow more from the Government? One cannot separate these two sums of money.

The Prime Minister: I do not want to pursue this matter for too long. I shall be interested to see what line the Opposition will take on the Fort William Pulp and Paper Mills Bill Money Resolution.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTTISH TRADES UNION CONGRESS (LETTER)

Mr. W. Hamilton: asked the Prime Minister what was the reply of the Scottish Trades Union Congress to his letter dated 15th March, 1963.

The Prime Minister: The Scottish Trades Union Congress thanked me for my letter and promised to reply later.

Mr. Hamilton: Is the Prime Minister aware that I know of the contents of the letter and that the Scottish T.U.C. expressed dissatisfaction with the right hon. Gentleman's original reply? Is he aware that, contrary to what he said in the House last week in reply to a Question on the same subject which I put to him, his letter did not cover nor did the Budget cover many of the points incorporated in the original memorandum of the Scottish T.U.C.? When will the right hon. Gentleman show the courtesy to the Scottish T.U.C. of replying to all the points in the memorandum, most of which were not touched on in the Budget?

The Prime Minister: I am waiting now for the detailed reply from the Scottish T.U.C. It has always treated me with the greatest courtesy, and I try to do the same. This seems to annoy the hon. Member. I do not know why.

Mr. Hamilton: Is the Prime Minister aware that it is not courtesy to ignore deliberately many of the major points in the memorandum?

The Prime Minister: I answered some and I said that others would be answered later, and they were largely covered by the Budget. I am awaiting the reply. The letter was couched in the most courteous language, and certainly the same

courtesy was shown when I met the representatives. I also said that if they wished to see me again I should be very happy to meet them. They know that.

Oral Answers to Questions — LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (SPEECH)

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Prime Minister whether the public speech by the Lord President of the Council at Wigan on 5th April, on the need for a reform of Parliament, represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. My noble Friend made it clear in this speech that he was speculating on the need for reform.

Mr. Shinwell: Is the Prime Minister aware that the noble Lord said many things which related to common sense and that there is much need for a reform of Parliament? If the right hon. Gentleman intends to give this matter consideration, surely he cannot ignore his noble Friend. Will the right hon. Gentleman take note that he must implement this policy at a fairly early date, because there is serious danger that if he does not do so he may not have the opportunity?

The Prime Minister: Questions are put down about Ministerial speeches. I think that Ministers should have the right to air large questions whether they are for immediate legislation or are general questions which are of public interest. I thought that this speech discussed a question in which many of us have taken an interest and on which there are different points of view, but it is not possible for me to say on what particular date in this Session I can try to introduce methods to deal with this large problem.

Mr. H. Wilson: On an occasion when a Minister in a public speech outside is talking sense, which does not always happen, is it not ungracious of the Prime Minister to talk about "speculating" and "airing views"? Should not this be an occasion when the Prime Minister might say that the Minister was speaking on behalf of Her Majesty's Government? Why is it that when Ministers talk nonsense the Prime Minister says that that is the Government's policy, but when they talk sense he tries to slide out of responsibility?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well the distinction. I am very often asked whether a particular precise proposal represents the decision of Her Majesty's Government. The right hon. Gentleman knows the distinction between this and speeches made by Ministers and others on large subjects which do not involve precise proposals. But I will convey to my noble Friend the praise from the right hon. Gentleman which, coming from him, will I am sure be a very nice Easter gift for my noble Friend.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT, HULL

Commander Pursey: asked the Prime Minister (1) what steps he is taking to co-ordinate the work of the Ministers at present responsible for the reduction of unemployment in Hull;
(2) whether he will appoint a senior Cabinet Minister to co-ordinate the efforts of the several Ministers responsible for dealing with development and unemployment in the Hull area.

The Prime Minister: Co-ordination is best secured, as at present, through consultation between the Ministers concerned.

Commander Pursey: Is the Prime Minister aware that during the war Hull was always referred to as a North-East Coast port? Why cannot the Lord President of the Council be authorised to deal with unemployment in Hull? Why cannot he and other senior Cabinet Ministers be concerned with this problem, in view of the fact that the Government have been unable to make any impact on the unemployment situation in Hull? Is nothing to be done by the Government to reduce the figure of 5,000 unemployed in the third port and eighth city of the country, or is Hull to become an evacuation city for the unemployed to move to the South at Government expense for fares and lodgings when they arrive there?

The Prime Minister: At the moment the level of unemployment in Hull is just a little higher than the national average, but I will convey to my noble friend the desire of the hon. and gallant Member that he should go to Hull and examine it properly. I am sure that my noble Friend will be very gratified by the hon. and gallant Member's interest in his work.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOME SECRETARY (SPEECH)

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Prime Minister whether the public speech of the Home Secretary on 5th April at the annual meeting of the Ulster Unionist Council on the question of maintaining transport communications between Scotland and Northern Ireland represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Hughes: Can the Prime Minister explain what the Home Secretary meant when he said that social and political consequences would be taken into consideration before the closing down of a railway line which keeps Ulster Unionists in touch with Western civilisation? Can the right hon. Gentleman assure us that every possible consideration will be given before the closing down of a railway which has played an important part in relations between Scotland and Ireland?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — WELSH AFFAIRS

Mr. G. Thomas: asked the Prime Minister whether he will arrange for the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs to answer Questions concerning the Welsh Office on days other than those on which he answers Questions dealing with housing and local government.

The Prime Minister: The order of Questions is arranged or rearranged from time to time after consultation between the usual channels.

Mr. Thomas: Is it not high time that Welsh affairs were treated like Scottish affairs and given a separate time for Questions in the House? Does the Prime Minister not realise that he raised hopes last week that this might be done?

The Prime Minister: As much time as possible will be given, but Questions and where they fall cannot be arranged to meet everybody's desires. This is a matter which normally both sides of the House consult about in deciding what is best to be done. I will certainly bring the hon. Member's desires to the attention of our negotiating side. I hope that he will receive some support from his.

Mr. G. Thomas: asked the Prime Minister what variation in the powers of the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs is proposed when the Welsh Office is established in Cardiff.

The Prime Minister: The Minister for Welsh Affairs will become responsible, in collaboration with the other Ministers concerned, for carrying out a long-term survey of the prospects for Wales, and for producing plans for the economic and social development of the Principality. The public investment plans will be brought together, and the intention will he to stimulate growth and encourage private investment where they will serve the best interests of Wales.

Mr. Thomas: Am I to understand from that Answer that the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs will still be able to give only part-time to Welsh affairs? Is there any increase in his authority and power to deal with Wales, or is the Welsh Office mere window-dressing in election year?

The Prime Minister: It is another step forward in the process which has been going on for some time. I think that it will be found generally convenient to have these offices grouped together under the general authority or co-ordination of a Minister, particularly with a Minister of State there. I hope that the hon. Member, who has great influence, will help in making this as useful as possible to the interests of Wales.

Oral Answers to Questions — HONG KONG (KUOMINTANG AGENTS)

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: asked the Prime Minister what representations he has made to President Kennedy with a view to joint action by Her Majesty's Government and the Government of the United States to restrain Marshal Chiang Kai-shek from sending Kuomintang agents to Hong Kong to carry out

sabotage on the territory of mainland China.

The Prime Minister: I would refer the right hon. Gentleman to the reply which I gave him on the 14th of February.

Mr. Noel-Baker: The Prime Minister then promised that he would consider taking the action which I proposed. Is he aware that the so-called Government of Formosa is now reported to be planning much larger-scale military operations against the mainland of China this summer, and that this sabotage work only results in indiscriminate murder and strengthening the supports of the Chinese people for the Government of Sinkiang? Will he represent to President Kennedy that Hong Kong should no longer be used for this purpose?

The Prime Minister: I do not think there is any difference between us. We have, of course, no diplomatic relations with the Chinese Nationalist authorities in Formosa, We have, however, made strong objections to the activities of the Kuomintang agents in Hong Kong, which are known to the Chinese Nationalists there, through all the channels which are open to us.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Will the Prime Minister recognise that it is in the power of President Kennedy to stop this if he wants to, for the Government of Formosa entirely depends on the Government in Washington and it is intolerable that territories under British rule should be used for such a purpose?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. But I think it is perhaps possible to overestimate the real control which the Americans have. We are bringing every pressure upon them. to try to do exactly what the right hon. Member desires to be done.

ADJOURNMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Redmayne.]

LONDON AIRPORT (NIGHT FLIGHTS)

12.2 p.m.

Sir Lionel Heald: Mr. Speaker, I am very grateful to you for giving me the opportunity and privilege to open a discussion on a subject which is of very great concern at present to at least half a million people in ten or more constituencies which surround London Airport, and which also has disturbing implications for the future. I know that other hon. Members representing some of those constituencies are anxious to catch your eye and to speak in the debate. They will be able to give you information on certain detailed aspects of the matter, but I feel that a brief general introduction is necessary if we are to get the problem into perspective.
It is also important to emphasise that this is not a mere repetition or rehashing of a subject which has been discussed before. There are events taking place and a decision has recently been made which alter the situation by considerably worsening it. The complaint can be summarised in one sentence, by adapting familiar Parliamentary language and saying that the noise nuisance from night flights at London Airport has increased, is increasing, and ought to be diminished.
There are two aspects of this matter. First, there is the immediate prospect, between now and October, which was disclosed by the Minister of Aviation's Answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Sir B. Craddock) on 29th March, when my right hon. Friend stated that he had authorised an increase in the night traffic between the hours of 11 p.m. and 7 a.m. at London Airport by an amount which is equivalent to 60 per cent. over last year. Last year's figures were creating great concern already. Secondly, there is the broader question of the policy and future intentions of the Minister of Aviation in relation to the discharge of his duties under the Civil Aviation Act, 1949, from which his powers are derived.
I am authorised to put the view of a number of hon. Members with whom I have had the opportunity of discussing

the matter and with representatives from our various constituencies. I hope to put the case with proper moderation. Our very strong and genuine view is that from all appearances the Minister does not seem to be giving nearly enough weight, either as to the present situation or as regard the future, to his constitutional duty to safeguard the rights of the general public, as contrasted with the other duty, which he undoubtedly has, towards the development of efficient civil aviation.
As you, Mr. Speaker, will be very well aware, but for Section 40 of the Civil Aviation Act every one of our constituents who is affected by these night flights would have an unfettered right at common law to take proceedings in the courts for an injunction to restrain them as an actionable nuisance. That right was taken away by the Civil Aviation Act, 1949. There was substituted for it Ministerial control exercised by means of air navigation orders and regulations under which, among other things, night flights can be sanctioned or refused by the Minister in his absolute discretion, and without any appeal to the courts.
Thus, the Minister alone has the power and the duty to safeguard the rights of the public. He could in effect be described as the trustee of our common law rights in this respect. As far as concerns nuisance or trespass, it is only by that means that the householder is able to obtain the benefit of a very fundamental principle of English law, which was reaffirmed recently by a judge of the High Court, Mr. Justice Veale, in the case of Halsey v. the Esso Petroleum Company. That principle is that a man and his family are entitled to sleep undisturbed in their own house at night.
The nuisance in that case was caused by large road tankers. They were nothing like so big as jet planes and the noise they made, although described by the judge in that case as "appalling", was nothing like so great as the noise made by jets. Yet the judge restrained their use altogether during the midnight hours and no one thought of appealing against that decision.
The Minister's discretionary powers here involve a very real responsibility to the public. I am sure that he realises this, but I am bound to say that he has


not made it apparent to everyone. Of course, I do not suggest for a moment that it would be a proper exercise of the Minister's discretion for him to forbid jet flights altogether—to forbid jet planes to exist, as some people have suggested, on the ground that they can be a nuisance. That would be an extravagant proposition and no one would want to support it. I do say, however, that at present all the evidence indicates that neither the Minister nor his predecessors have made any sufficient effort to balance and to reconcile the two conflicting duties—his duty to the general public and his duty to aviation.
There is a widespread fear among those affected—who include many engineers and other practical men with technical knowledge of the various problems involved—that the Minister is in danger of giving up the unequal struggle and opening the door to virtually unlimited night flights, or, at any rate, that will be the inevitable consequence of what is now happening unless a very definite change takes place. It is right that I should make good what I have said by reference to the history of the subject. That speaks much better and more eloquently on the subject than I could hope to do.
On 4th December, 1959—we should remember that that is less than three and a half years ago—the then Minister said in the House:
Under present arrangements no jet aircraft are scheduled to land or take-off at night; i.e. between about 11 p.m. and 7 a.m. However, permission has occasionally to be given for delayed aircraft to arrive or depart during these hours."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th December, 1959; Vol. 614, c. 168.]
In April, 1960, the new Comet 4 was allowed to undertake a limited number of night flights, and it is interesting to read the remarks of the air correspondent of the Financial Times, of 29th November, 1960, on that experiment. Obviously very well-informed from most admirable sources, he said that the Minister's permission was intended to be only temporary and that "if the volume of complaint becomes serious he may have to withdraw it." So any idea at that time that the airlines had a superior right to make night flights in the midnight hours from London Airport in preference to the rights of the public to sleep was clearly never in the mind of the Minister

or of anybody else at that date. The date that I am speaking of is the end of 1960.
In 1961, some additional night services were sanctioned from London Airport. The public complained very strongly, although the flights in question were very few in number comparatively, and on 11th August, 1961, we find the Consultative Committee for London Airport reporting that it had strongly pressed the Minister to say that there should be an absolute prohibition of flights between 11 p.m. and 7 a.m., but that he had replied, and I am quoting only a brief extract of what he said:
The Minister has taken note of the resolution but regrets that he is unable to agree to the request, since the operation of scheduled services at night by turbo-jet aircraft enables the airlines to use their aircraft and ground organisation more economically, to reduce costs and accordingly to offer reduced fares and charges on the night flights. The effect of all this is to bring air travel within reach of many who could not otherwise afford it, and to bring more tourists to this country. … The Minister, naturally, understands the anxiety caused by the problem of aircraft noise and greatly regrets that it should be a source of disturbance to residents … and he will continue to do everything possible to keep it to the minimum.
That expression "the minimum" was about as unsatisfactory an expression as one could have, completely ambiguous; no one knew then, and no one knows now, what it was intended to mean. But the result has been the beginning of the descent from the slippery slope and today the "minimum" really means nothing at all. Here again, the facts can speak best—actions speak more trumpet-like than words, in this connection.
In 1962, the airlines made a determined onslaught on the Minister and apparently demanded 4,000 movements, as they are called, 2,000 landings and 2,000 take-offs between the hours of 11 p.m. and 7 a.m. I shall come to the results of that per day and per week in a moment or two. That was, of course, an enormous increase, and probably the figure of 4,000 asked for was an opening bid which they were not very optimistic of getting, but it is the fact that, even so, it was with the greatest difficulty that the Minister was persuaded to stick his toes in and to insist on the reduction to 1,500 plus 1,500, that is to say, 1,500 take-offs and 1,500 landings, a total of 3,000 movements.
That was really the break-through,


because it means at the peak, that is to say, at the worst time of the summer, 77 take-offs in a week and 15 per night on the worst night, which, of course, is a Friday. Friday night was known years ago as "Amami" night. But now, in this part of the world, it is "jet" night. On 29th March this year, when the Minister was eventually compelled tardily to disclose the figures he had allowed for this season by my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne it was found that this 1,500 take-off figure of last year had been stepped up to no fewer than 2,400, or 4,800 movements, an increase of 60 per cent. over those that caused so much trouble and complaint last year. Now the peak for the week this year, according to the time-tables, I am told, will be 108 per week as against 77, or 40 per cent. increase, and in one night 19 against 15, or a 35 per cent, increase. As the victims have already feared, it looks as if the pass has now been sold.
It is depressing to note the change in the tone of the Minister's answer. No longer is there any reference to keeping it down to the minimum. Two things only are mentioned. First, he says:
The increase over the corresponding period last year results directly from the rapid replacement of piston-engined and turbo-prop aircraft by jets.
In other words, the emphasis is upon the inevitability, and nothing is said about what is being done to keep it down, Then a rather cynical addition is:
We shall continue to ensure that the airlines maintain their present good record in keeping night noise down to the level permitted"—
that, everybody agrees, they are doing—but, he went on—
and the encouragement of research into the methods of reducing the nuisance of noise will be continued."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th March, 1963; Vol. 674, c. 197.]
What our constituents are concerned with is not what the scientific "boffins" will produce in 1970, but their conditions of sleep in 1963. It is not very helpful for them to have that view put forward. It is no exaggeration to say that there is a very wide feeling that the inference is that the Minister has really given up the ghost about trying to protect the public. How serious that is can best be shown by a quotation from a most important paper recently read before the civil engineers by the Professor of

Aeronautical Engineering at Southampton University, Professor Richards.
Again, I would much prefer to rely on the expert rather than on my own imagination. This is what he says at the beginning of his statement and I hope that the House will forgive me for reading it, because I think that it is most important:
With the introduction into London Airport of jet airliners with horsepowers higher than those of the Queen Elizabeth and Queen Mary, the problem of the noise at airports has become one of major importance. … The number of complaints about noise has doubled itself roughly during each of the last four years, even though the daily number of jet aircraft movements in 1960, for example, was still only 70 or so per day. … Allowing for the growth of traffic generally, we can predict for London Airport some 500 jet airliner movements a day by 1970, and a good proportion of these will be short-haul types … which must be operable without limitation day and night. Thus, at peak departure hours during the day and evening, we can expect a take-off every one or two minutes and one every five minutes at some periods of the night.
Of course, these aircraft will not necessarily be as noisy as the present breed. … Furthermore, the short-haul aircraft … can climb to considerable heights before flying over the built-up areas around London Airport. Even so, all the signs point to the noise nuisance increasing catastrophically unless a very careful control is set.
What is that careful control? We see no evidence of it whatever. How can the Minister prevent this inevitable result if he says that as more jets are brought into service as there is more demand for tourist flights, more and more flights will be allowed at night and people must just put up with it? Action is required now, if any stop is to be put to it.
The discussion and correspondence which followed that important paper, to which I hope to hear that the Minister has paid attention, was extremely interesting and instructive. I cannot refer to it in detail, but it was published by the Institution of Civil Engineers, and I want to give simply two strongly contrasting views, which, we would all agree, are rather alarming.
The first comment shows what I can only describe as the complacent outlook of some of the operators. A gentleman is reported as saying, in effect, that because the noise level in engines has now been reduced to a figure which is regarded by experts as a figure that should be


acceptable to the public, the operators now feel that their social obligations have been defined—in other words, they need not worry about it any more.
To some extent, of course, that is true, because it is the Minister who is responsible and not the airlines; and one cannot blame them for doing only what they are required to do. It should, however, be pointed out that those who live in the vicinity of London Airport do not accept that the experts' view about what ought to be acceptable to them is preferable to their own experience of what is. Apart from that, the gentleman in question was guilty, I suggest, of special pleading at a very high level, because he left out altogether the question of frequency, and seemed to assume that the whole problem would be resolved because the noise is now being reduced to a "tolerable" level.
In his reply, Professor Richards disagreed entirely and said that although the engines probably could not be got any further down in the noise level than they had been in the time, he did not think that they had gone far enough. In his view, therefore, that is not the solution.
In the end, this gentleman's suggestion was that the sovereign remedy was that people ought not to be allowed to live alongside airfields. What the moral to that is for the people who are living there, I do not know. Many of them were there years before jets were ever thought of. It is a rather depressing view. I do not believe that it is held by many people, but that, at least, was one view which was expressed.
On the other side of the picture, we had a remarkable piece of evidence from a highly qualified technologist who is the principal scientific officer of the Road Research Laboratory of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research. He happened to live on the fringe of London Airport, so he was able to speak with considerable feeling. I can read only a small part of what he said. Here is an extract from it:
Professor Richards quoted an estimate that 40,000 people in the vicinity of London Airport were subjected to excessive noise. But the accepted noise tolerance level was about 75 to 80 decibels so it was hardly surprising, as was common knowledge, that complaints of excessive noise arose in large volume in areas several miles from London Airport such as Slough … Windsor … Richmond …

and Barnes … without mentioning intervening areas, so that the lives of something like half a million people were affected by objectionable noise due to aircraft. This, it must be remembered, was for only one airport out of many where jet-engined aircraft either operated, or desired to operate in the future.
Then, he states:
The inescapable question therefore arose, 'Is it rational to subject continuously a considerable proportion of the country's population to serious interference due to noise throughout their lives … so that an extremely small proportion of their fellow citizens can very occasionally travel a little more quickly by air than they did previously?' There could surely only be one answer in a nation or world which called itself civilised. Yet both the question and the national answer seemed to have been carefully, or carelessly, avoided by the responsible authorities. The only sign of wisdom had emanated from Norway, where the people of Oslo had insisted that they would not have noisy aircraft overhead—at night, at any rate.
That is a very striking statement. What is said there is a point that we should all ponder. Is not this an example where our system of government is not keeping up with science? Science and government must go hand in hand if we are to deal with the problems of the present day in this particular case.
It is not only the Government who are to blame. We in this House are to blame that in a subject of this kind we are allowing it to slide. The future consequences may be very great. The supersonic aircraft are coming; everybody agrees that they will be worse. Do we know where the airfields will be, how they will be arranged and how these matters will be dealt with?
Other hon. Members wish to speak and I do not wish to occupy more than a few moments more time. As regards the immediate problem, however, I am advised that there should be no difficulty in fitting at least a large number of the tourist flights which now take place between 11 p.m. and 7 a.m. into other periods at either side of those hours. Although in the past we have been told that that is the only acceptable time for tourist flights, we now know that tourist flights start at 7.15 in the evening and finish at nine o'clock in the morning. Therefore, if we were allowed to have a quiet or reasonably quiet period at least between 11 p.m. and 6 a.m. there is a period of nearly eight hours outside those times into which these flights could be fitted. The number of them involved is


by no means prohibitive from that point of view. We wish to know whether this aspect has been considered. It should be considered, but there is no evidence that it has been.
With regard to the long-range problem, we are entitled to have from my right hon. Friend the Minister of Aviation some kind of assurance that the future is being considered in a serious and business-like way. The House should have particulars of the Minister's and the Government's intentions and plans. We should be told how far consideration of this matter has gone. We should have a document issued which we can study with expert assistance and we should then have a debate in the House of Commons, when the whole matter could be gone into seriously and we could discharge our responsibilities. Meanwhile, I am sure, there is widespread support for the view that the Minister must take another and much more careful look at this problem and must pay much more attention to the rights of individual citizens.

12.29 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Skeffington: On behalf of all those who are victims of this intolerable nuisance at London Airport and on behalf of all hon. Members interested in this problem, may I say how very grateful we are to the right hon. and learned Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald), first for having raised this subject on the Adjournment, and, secondly, for having given such a masterly survey of the history of the problem and adding so many points of absolutely first-class importance which the Minister must consider?
There is another reason why I and some of my hon. Friends are especially grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. We have lost no opportunity of urging the claims of those who live near airports and suffer from this grave nuisance. Many people who live near London Airport were there before the airport and therefore have a special claim on us. The fact that we have done this constantly results, perhaps, in the House and the Department tending to regard those of us who continue to do so as merely having a bee in our bonnets or just raising only a constituency point. It is a constituency point, and none the worse for that. But if I had nothing

whatever to do with a constituency near the airport, having experienced this dreadful noise I should feel as deeply and passionately as I do and still agree with everything said by the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
I want to be very brief this morning, because one important object of this debate is to get as many points of view as possible from both sides of the House. One point which concerns us is that, although we have lost no opportunity of bringing the problem before the Minister, the situation does become steadily worse. We have secured minor concessions. We have secured concessions about the testing of engines at night. Earthworks have been erected, though all too slowly. Some small improvements have been brought about, but the general position has got much worse. With each year that passes the amount of disturbance becomes greater and the conditions become more and more intolerable for residents.
This has all happened, particularly in regard to the disturbance from night flights of jets, in the last three years, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman pointed out. Although we constantly alerted the Minister, many of us received a shock when we found only two years ago that Swissair and Scandinavian Air concerns actually printed their timetables of night jet departures from London before the Ministry had even completed the tests on them. This is an extraordinary situation. It may be that these companies were highly intelligent and knew beforehand what the Minister would decide, or they may have taken a chance. However, it did not add to the confidence of those who suffer from this nuisance to learn that timetables were prepared as if the Minister's tests were a formality.
All of us in Parliament have a particular responsibility to the residents, because it was in this House that in 1946, in the Civil Aviation Act, which took away the ordinary common law rights of people who live round the airport in respect of noise made by aircraft. At that time there were no civilian jet engines, even if there were military jet engines. The circumstances of today were certainly not envisaged them. I do not say that it is practicable to put the clock back to 1946, but, because we took away the legal rights of ordinary


people, I think that the whole House has a particular responsibility to ensure that those who are the especial victims of the processes of the House are safeguarded to the maximum extent.
I do not think that that is now the case. The schedule for the coming seven months from April to October shows that the number of night flights has risen from 3,000 to 4,800. This makes one realise that company after company must have been given specific permission for these additional flights. It looks as if those responsible have taken no account of the sufferings of those who live round the airport. B.E.A. has been allowed 17 additional night flights per week, Alitalia 7, Swissair 1, Iberia 9. The list shows that there will be 31 extra night flights per week between 11 p.m. and 7 a.m. The total has now risen to this proportion, which means that on certain nights, certainly on Friday nights, there will be 19. There will also be aircraft landing. The noise from planes landing is very little less than the noise from those taking off.
In all these circumstances we must demand from the Minister that more consideration be given to people living near the airport, particularly those living within the check points, who get no advantage from the take-off procedure because they experience the full blast of this disturbance. We are entitled to ask the Minister for an assurance, not only that he will not allow any more but that he will consider some reduction in the way suggested by the right hon. and learned Gentleman. Even if there were a clear period of only six hours, this would be something. At present there is nothing.
The intention of the companies is that the whole night will be one long disturbance. I once described this noise as like Dante's Inferno. I do not believe that was a far-fetched description. Anyone who has been there—I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Lough-borough (Mr, Cronin) was there last night—and heard this noise knows that it is utterly appalling. It is like nothing else on earth. It cannot be compared with noise from railway yards or motor traffic. It is very sudden and very short, but the impact is terrifying. One does not get used to the noise even when one has heard it time and time again. It is not only the degree of loudness; it is also the

quality of the noise which makes it so objectionable. We therefore demand an assurance from the Minister, not only that there will be no more disturbance but that he will take active steps to ensure that there is less.

12.37 p.m.

Sir Beresford Craddock: As the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington) said, all of us are very grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald) for having sought this opportunity to bring forward, once again, this very important problem.
My right hon. and learned Friend and the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington have covered the field so well that there is little that I can add to what they said, but I propose very briefly to put one or two questions to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Aviation in the hope that we will receive some satisfactory replies on many aspects of this difficult problem. As is the case with every right hon. and hon. Member whose constituency borders London Airport, this problem has caused me very great concern ever since I have had the honour of being the Member for Spelthorne, now more than thirteen years.
During the last Parliament I worked with the then Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation and was able to see the other side of the matter. I am bound to say that then, as now, all my sympathies lay with the residents who live all round the airport. The way in which they have put up with this for so long and acted towards it in a very responsible way is astonishing.
There are two aspects of the problem. The first is the question of the testing and running up of engines during the night. This is not only a problem of night flying. It is a problem of day flights. Even during the day the noise from the heavy jets is almost intolerable. During the last Parliament—it may well have been before that—baffle walls were started; earth walls were constructed. They have to a certain extent minimised the problem of noise from the testing and running up of engines.
Occasionally, I go there, as I understand that the hon. Member for Lough-borough (Mr. Cronin) has done during the night, just to listen to this noise, which I entirely agree with the hon.
Member for Hayes and Harlington can well be described as a Dante's Inferno. On one occasion I suggested that the noise at London Airport, both during the day and at night, was just hell on earth. I do not think that that is an exaggeration.
More baffle walls and earth works are needed to combat the noise from night testing and night running. I would be grateful if my hon. Friend would say something about that.
If my memory serves me right, the then Minister of Aviation, in the last Parliament, laid it down that there should be practically no testing or running up of engines during the night. I have the feeling that those regulations have been relaxed, and I would be grateful if my hon. Friend would say something about that, too. This hinges to the question of the speed and height at which aircraft are compelled to fly. I understand that there are strict regulations about this—or, at any rate, that the regulations were strict at one time. I mention this because, frankly, my observations lead me to believe that these regulations are not being observed and as stringently enforced as they should be.
I appreciate that there is no easy solution to this problem. For many years we have been told that a great deal of research work was going on in connection with mufflers and other devices in an attempt to reduce the noise. What progress has been made? Is enough energy and drive being put behind these experiments and is enough money being spent in that direction? I know that research of this kind is still going on and I understand that a special team of research workers at the Cavendish Laboratories in Cambridge is going into the problem. I would be grateful if my hon. Friend would say what progress they have made.
I deprecate the increase in night flying. That there has been a considerable increase was indicated by my right hon. Friend the Minister in an Answer he gave to a Question I put to him about ten days ago. In this connection, I would like to know what is happening about Gatwick Airport. Is it being used for night flights? Here is a first-class airport, built at enormous expense, but I have the impression that very little

use is being made of it. It is not unreasonable to suggest that part of this night flying should be directed, for takeoff and landing, to Gatwick Airport. I realise that this would mean an increasing burden on the residents living around that airport, but in view of the situation today I would have thought it not unreasonable to suggest that greater use should be made of Gatwick.
I hope that we will be given some assurances about this whole matter, because one of the greatest problems facing mankind throughout the world is the question of the rights of the individual being dismissed in favour of the machine. This is a trend to which I take the greatest exception and which, I hope, will be retarded as much as possible. I regard it as the duty of the Minister of Aviation and the Government, of any complexion, to get down to this problem much more vigorously than would appear has been the case in recent years, so that some relief can be given to good-living citizens.

12.43 p.m.

Mr. A. E. Hunter: I, too, would like to thank you, Mr. Speaker, for allocating time for this debate. I would also like to join my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington) and the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Sir B. Craddock) in thanking the right hon. and learned Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald) for his speech. I am sure that the great interest that has been shown in this matter will be welcomed by the residents around London Airport, who could have no more sincere and able an advocate than the right hon. and learned Member for Chertsey.
I support the comments of the hon. Member for Spelthorne about research into this problem. I have been in this House for nearly eight years and have taken part in most of the debates on aircraft noise. On each occasion either the Minister or his Parliamentary Secretary has said that research was going on all the time. If this is so, why does the Ministry not ban the taking-off and landing of aircraft at night unless they are emergencies—at least until the research has borne fruit? For some reason the Ministry will not do this, but allows night flights to continue and is increasing


the number of night flights allowed by 60 per cent, this year, mostly for holiday tours.
The present Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations called a conference of aircraft manufacturers and airline operators when in his previous office and asked them to pay special attention to the question of eliminating the noise at its source. Have any results emanated from that conference?
My constituency, like that of other hon. Members who have spoken—and the hon. Member for Spelthorne has Stanwell, while my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington has Harlington—contains the area of Bed-font, which have some houses only 300 yards from a runway, and also Cranford, which is very near the airport. Though most of the people living around the airport are willing to tolerate the noise by day, they strongly object to it by night. I urge the Minister to reconsider the whole matter, especially the suggestion of banning or reducing night flights between, say 11 p.m. and 7 a.m., or midnight and 6 a.m.
In some European countries—and I understand, in New York—jets are not allowed to use certain airports at night. Why should London Airport be in a totally different position? I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will deal with this when he replies. I would like to develop this aspect further, but I must be brief because other hon. Members wish to speak.
Most night flights are for holiday tours. This is particularly true during June, July and August. If we have a hot summer, people leave their bedroom windows open and the noise of aircraft going overhead is particularly objectionable; people do not get any sleep. I urge the Minister to protect the residents around London Airport, especially those near runways or in the glide path of flights. Surely these holiday tours could be arranged so that landings and take-offs are differently timed at 6 a.m. or 7 a.m.
Like other hon. Members, I appeal to the Ministry to confine these flights to daytime. As I say, the majority of people are prepared to tolerate them by day, but are certainly not prepared to do so by night, without protest.
I appeal to the Minister to reduce night flights and not to increase them by 60 per cent, this year, mostly for holiday tours.

12.48 p.m.

Mr. Charles Curran: I am glad to reinforce the appeals that have been made by hon. Members representing constituencies around London Airport for some action by the Ministry. Since I became an hon. Member, three-and-a-half years ago, I, like other hon. Members with constituencies in the area, have constantly been receiving complaints about night flying.
We keep on asking the Ministry to look into the matter and I have no doubt that all hon. Members representing such constituencies have accumulated an impressive number of Whitehall pieces of prose on the subject. We are used to all the answers, explanations and excuses and I hope that today the Parliamentary Secretary will break through this sound barrier. We can take the explanations, excuses, and so on, as having been said and I hope that my hon. Friend will not say that the Ministry regards this as a serious problem. Phrases about research being pursued with speed and vigour, hopes that something will presently be discovered, and so on, should not be used any longer. If Ministry spokesmen continue to reply to these debates with phrases of that sort I shall be prepared to listen; but I have heard them so many times before that I would like my hon. Friend to apply himself specifically to the noise nuisance which is being inflicted on the people living around the airport.
We hope that he is not in any doubt about the nature of this nuisance, or about the anger it causes; and that he must not suppose that familiarity will breed contempt for jets—it will not. The anger felt by many thousands of people living within earshot of the airport is very real. The Minister must recognise it, and must make clear not only that he is sympathetic but that he is prepared to take action. One of the things we learn in arguing about the airport is the importance of decibel counts—if the Minister could take an adjective count at the airport he would find it much more alarming than any decibel report he could produce.
I want to ask my hon. Friend some specific questions. First, is it practicable


to set up a compensation fund for these people living around the airport whose lives are being made intolerable, and who would be prepared, if nothing else can be done, to get out of earshot rather than suffer any longer? Is it practicable to ask the airlines that now use these jets to create by some levy, a compensation fund to help those people who find it impossible to live around the airport and want to sell their houses?
It must be remembered that living in this area are very many people who lived there long before London Airport came into existence. In my own constituency there is the village of Harmondsworth, which is eight centuries old and, I suppose, one of the oldest villages in England. People live there whose families have lived there for generations—long before the airport was even dreamed of—and they are now suffering from something they never contemplated when they set up house.
In Sipson, Cranford, Longford and Harmondsworth, and all round, one can find these people who have lived there for thirty or forty years, and whose families have been there for generations. The compensation fund that I have in mind would enable them to sell their houses and move away without suffering financial loss.
The Minister is entitled to say that a good many of those who complain have gone to live in that area since the airport came into existence, and I suppose that it can be argued that they knew what they were letting themselves in for, and must put up with it. No such reply can be made in respect of the very many people who lived there long before the airport was established, and I therefore press the Minister to consider the creation of a compensation fund.
Secondly, I should like some information on matters of fact about these night jet flights. I am still not quite clear how many we are to have during the coming summer. How many airlines have night jet flights scheduled to take place between now and September or October? The people in the neighbourhood would very much like to know how the numbers compare with last year's programme. Is the position this

year to be worse or better than, or just as bad as it was last year?
I want to reinforce what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Sir B. Craddock) about the practicability of diverting some of these night jet flights from London Airport. Are there any night jet flights from Gat-wick and from Stansted? They are both perfectly good airports on the other side of London, and I quite agree with my hon. Friend that we ought to divert some of these night jet flights to them. Why cannot we have something like equality of misery about this? Why should not Gatwick and Stansted have it as well as Heathrow, Harmondsworth, and all the other places affected? Let us have some approximation in misery instead of inflicting on this area alone the unending and deafening noise that now goes on.
I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be as explicit as possible. It may be that he and his advisers take the view that nothing very much can be done, that those living around the airport must grin and bear it and put up with the jets, and that presently they may have to put up with the supersonic planes. I was very glad that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald)—for whose support we are all enormously grateful—referred to supersonic planes which are in prospect. I suppose that when they arrive they will be an even greater nuisance than the jets.
Does my hon. Friend think that nothing very much can be done? If he believes that these people must put up with jets now, and must presently put up with the supersonic planes, I ask him to say so. If nothing can be done, let him say so, without putting up a smoke-screen of excuses. We should like to know the worst. If the necessity for night flying jets and the coming use of supersonic planes takes precedence over the eardrums of the people around the airport, we should be told so in plain English.
Therefore, in addition to the other matters that have been raised, I invite him to tell us what he sees for the future. Does he see this as a permanent nuisance or as a terminating one? Whatever way it is, we should like to be told in language about which there can be no misunderstanding.

12.58 p.m.

Mr. Fenner Brockway: I also represent one of the constituencies acutely affected—to the west of the London Airport. Over it the planes rise as they go to America and Ireland, and over it they circle, in favourable weather, when going to Europe. If the Parliamentary Secretary could only read the letters that I and other hon. Members receive from our constituents in these districts he would understand the gravity of the problem. I estimate that at least half a million people are affected by this nuisance.
As I want to be brief, I shall refer only to a matter that has not yet been mentioned. I recognise that it is quite extraordinary how human beings can become accustomed to noise, but there are two sections of the community to whom aircraft noise at night is an absolute torture.
The first section is the elderly. The Medical Officer of Health for Slough has reported that the noise of night flights has a most disturbing effect on the health of old people. I have not yet reached old age—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—and, therefore, I cannot judge the matter for myself. But I am told that when one does become old, one sleeps more lightly and the difficulty of sleeping soundly at night becomes greater. The old are among those who suffer most from this noise problem.
The second section of the community to which I refer is the chronic sick. There are large number of people whose illness is of such a nature that they cannot take drugs to assist them to sleep. My mail includes letters from many such sufferers Some live at home and others are in hospitals which lie beneath the flight path of these jet aircraft. In a debate yesterday I said that this House is concerned with individuals as well as with the State and great machines. When such torture as this is suffered by the old and by the sick, it is a matter which ought to be of paramount importance to the Minister.
I recognise that in this modern age we have to allow for the development of aircraft. But I ask the Minister to look at these matters to see whether he can ensure a more rigid application of the control of the heavy loads

which are carried by aircraft. Heavy loads result in them ascending at a height which involves an intolerable noise for the people who live below the path of the aircraft. I know that there are regulations, but I think that they should be strengthened.
Secondly, it is the duty of the Ministry to insist on effective silencers for aircraft. One of the problems arises from the fact that as advances are made in the research into effective engine silencers, the engine noises become louder in their volume because of the greater speeds attained by the aeroplanes. The Minister must balance these things. I think that, at least at night time, he should insist on the provision of effective silencers.

1.3 p.m.

Mr. Dudley Smith: I do not wish to impinge upon the time to be taken in this debate by the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin). I, too, join in the congratulations to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald) on raising this matter. This is the third or fourth Adjournment debate which we have had upon a subject which is becoming increasingly urgent. There is general concern in the area of London Airport, as is evidenced by the fact that so many hon. Members have spoken today. My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Surrey (Mr. A. Royle), whose constituency adjoins mine, has a particular interest in this matter. Unfortunately, he is precluded from taking part in this debate because of his responsibilities as P.P.S. to the Minister of Aviation. But my hon. Friend is with us in spirit, if not vocally.
Brentford and Chiswick is on the fringe of the area troubled by this noise problem. Nevertheless, it has a serious effect on my constituents, particularly in the summer months. We have become used to the "black Fridays" when the holiday rush gets under way, and it is alarming to note that the timetables of Friday flights for the coming summer show an increase of 35 per cent. I am particularly concerned with the effect of the noise upon the elderly and upon young children, two groups of the community in which one finds most people of nervous disposition. They become easily frightened and may even be shocked by sudden noise.
Apart from the general disturbance and the interruption of people's rest, we must always bear in mind the needs of the old people and of the young.
It is true to say that the vicinity of London Airport is becoming something of a "distressed area", and that has been emphasised by what hon. Members have said today. We cannot ban night flying from London Airport, and it would be wrong to attempt to do so. But I feel that there is an urgent need for a full and official examination of the long-term consequences of night flying and the volume of noise, particularly following the increased use of jet aeroplanes. I understand that the Japanese Government have banned all night flying from Tokyo Airport in deference to the people living in that area. We are not arguing that all the night flights from London Airport should be stopped. But the Ministry could conduct a thorough investigation into what happens at other international airports to see how this growing problem is being tackled.
I am told by experts that there could be a considerable reduction in engine noise if the pay load of the aeroplane was reduced by between 2 per cent, and 5 per cent, on night flights. I appreciate that this would involve financial aspects. But were it done, it would greatly reduce the noise caused by night flying. I echo the sentiments of my right hon. and learned Friend regarding the great concern being expressed over this matter. The public interest must be given greater consideration as the use of jet planes becomes more and more part of the pattern of our daily life. We must take further action, other than that indicated by the promises about research which we have been given by the Minister, before this matter becomes intolerable.

1.5 p.m.

Mr. John Cronin: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Brentford and Chiswick (Mr. D. Smith) for truncating his speech. It is a pity that hon. Gentlemen have had to make rather short speeches, because this is obviously a subject upon which we should have a full debate. I should like to compliment the right hon. and learned Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald) on his admirable exposition of

the problem, which has helped us to get a clear appreciation of the situation.
During our last debate on this subject we were told by the Parliamentary Secretary that he had made a personal inspection of the London Airport area. I believe that the hon. Gentleman spent a night in the airport manager's office and slept soundly throughout the night. We must congratulate him upon his stoical and phlegmatic attitude to the noise. I thought it desirable to make a personal investigation, so I spent the period between eleven o'clock last night and three o'clock this morning touring the district round the airport and visiting the houses of a number of people. I must say that I was very agreeably welcomed by constituents of several of the hon. Members who are present today. Some received me in their slumberwear and appeared to be in no way disturbed by the situation.
There was an extraordinary unanimity about the complaints of the intolerable noise, and I am sorry to say that there is a general feeling that the Government are being rather complacent over the need to find a solution to this very difficult problem. I gained the impression that the situation is very disagreeable, and that one could certainly be disturbed to the point where it would be impossible to sleep because of the noise caused by aircraft taking off and landing. If a machine took off or landed within a few hundred yards—this is experienced by people who live at Bedfont and Harlington—the noise is so shattering and intolerable that no one could sleep through it, so I feel that here we are obliged to deal with a very grave problem.
This is particularly the case in respect of the sick. At one house in Bedfont I was shown a lighted window and told that there was a sick child in the room. I do not know what sufferings that child must have gone through. But it illustrates the situation with which we are faced and with which we are asking the Government to deal. I have no doubt that the Parliamentary Secretary will say that the Government have instituted a set of control points where the noise is limited. But what happens to people who live within the control points? To reduce the noise at those points the more powerful aircraft have to ascend within the control points, and more power is


necessary to enable this to be done, so that there is more noise which makes it more intolerable for those within the control points.
I should like to know what will happen in the future to those unfortunate people who live close to the airport. The amount of noise varies with the thrust and velocity of the jets, I am told, to the power of 6. As we have more and more powerful jet aircraft, what will happen to those unfortunate people? Above all, what is to happen when we have supersonic jet aircraft, when there will not only be the noise of the jet engines but also the noise of the air passing over the fuselage and wings, the supersonic bang?
There are remedies, of course. I have been in touch with B.E.A. and B.O.A.C. I understand that they are going to immense trouble to ensure that their pilots adhere to noise reducing procedures. They are using mufflers in the testing of engines on the ground and silencers which reduce the power of the jet engines. All these courses have serious economic effects. I understand that it is costing B.E.A. £100,000 a year just for noise prevention alone and B.O.A.C. is suffering to the extent of £400,000 a year. I feel that the nationalised corporations are doing their best, as far as they can, to ease the problem. I have no doubt that, by and large, the other airlines are doing the same.
What can be done about reducing the actual noise of the engines? We shall probably hear from the Parliamentary Secretary that silencers are fitted. We shall probably hear that by-pass engines will reduce the noise by reducing the jet velocity. Unfortunately, however, most of the airlines are using aircraft already fitted with ordinary jet engines, not by-pass engines. It is most unlikely that we shall, in the near future, have a large proportion of by-pass engines substituted for the ordinary jet engines.
We then turn to the Government. What action is being taken by the Government to help these unfortunate people? I am sorry to say that the whole impression created by the debate today is that there is a gloomy miasma of doubt and suspicion overlying the Government's actions. I feel that there has been general dissatisfaction about what the Minister of Aviaton and his Department

are doing. There have been numerous Adjournment debates and Questions about this problem. We have been told that action is being taken to stop infractions, which, I think, is probably true. We have been told that various committees are reporting. We understand that there is a committee on noise set up by the Minister for Science under the chairmanship of Sir Alan Wilson. There is a sub-committee on aircraft noise. Will the hon. Gentleman tell us what report is coming from this committee and what action is being taken? We understand that the Minister for Science has instituted a social survey of districts close to the airport. May we have some information about the results of this?
We ought to have from the Parliamentary Secretary really detailed information as to what investigations are being undertaken to reduce this intolerable burden on the citizens living around London Airport. Who is making the investigations? Who is in charge of them? When shall we have a report about them?
What consideration is given to reducing the number of jet night flights? Several hon. Members have suggested this. If the Minister is not prepared to reduce the number of jet night flights, why not? What consideration has been given, at least, to having a number of hours—just a number of hours—in the night completely free of jet flights? If he is not prepared to consider that, may we have a really detailed explanation? Has the Minister considered setting up a departmental Committee to investigate the matter from every possible point of view?
I shall not go further now, because I wish the Parliamentary Secretary to have an opportunity to give a full and detailed answer. I conclude in this way. In 1949, the House handed over to the Minister of Civil Aviation the complete common law right of people to sleep in their beds undisturbed around the airports. This puts a very heavy responsibility on the shoulders of the present Minister. All of us are proud of the steady growth and development of British aviation, but this is taking place at an intolerably high cost to a small minority of people. We want the Parliamentary Secretary to give us detailed information about what steps are being taken to relieve the intolerable suffering of these people.

1.15 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Aviation (Mr. Neil Marten): I, too, congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald) on having raised this matter today. It is, as we all know, extremely important, and it is not one which the Government are ignoring at all. In fact, we are paying very great attention to it. Also, I thank all hon. Members who have taken part in the debate for the moderation, if I may so put it, within the limits of their feelings, with which they delivered their speeches and for the brevity with which they made their points.
As a newcomer to the Ministry, I still have a lot to learn. Having listened to the debate, I have learned a lot about the subject of noise and certainly a lot about the feelings which are generated by it. I hope that the House will accept my assurance that I shall take this matter away with me over Easter and consider all that has been said. Obviously, I cannot today follow up all the points which have been made, but I shall deal with them by correspondence in the usual way afterwards.
On 10th November, 1961, my predecessor but one, who is now Joint Undersecretary of State for the Home Department, had a rather unprecedented Adjournment debate on this subject. I say unprecedented because, although he was winding up an ordinary Adjournment debate, he had far more time than is usual and spoke for 50 minutes. I have about 15 minutes. I shall not try to cover all the points which my hon. Friend then made.
I begin by expressing my sincere sympathy to those who suffer from aircraft noise. Many categories of people have been mentioned. There has been special reference to the old and the sick, who, as the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway) said, are the two sections of the community with whom we all have great personal sympathy. I have not myself yet slept at London Airport, nor have I actually slept at a house round about, such as those visited last night by the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin).

Mr. Cronin: I must make a correction for the record. I did not sleep at all anywhere.

Mr. Marten: I quite understand. I did correct myself and say that the hon. Gentleman had visited houses round about.
However, I am not completely ignorant of this matter because, until a short time ago, I lived north of Richmond Park and right under one of the routes used by these great planes by day and by night. Nevertheless, I am not quite in the category of the people whom the hon. Gentleman visited last night, since they actually live around the airfield. I take the subject extremely seriously, and I realise that there is here a problem which we must solve.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chertsey referred in the earlier part of his speech of the discretionary powers open to the Minister. As I see it the Minister is under an obligation to take active steps not to abolish noise altogether, but to keep noise within tolerable limits. I assure the House that my right hon. Friend will continue, and I shall continue, to do everything possible to keep noise down to the minimum we can achieve.
My right hon. and learned Friend quoted from a letter which, he said, showed a cynical view with regard to the encouragement of research. I shall deal with that later, but I assure him and the House that it is not cynical at all. Further, my right hon. Friend said—I hope that this was a quotation—that the Minister had given up the ghost over this problem. I assure him that that is completely untrue.
My right hon. and learned Friend said also that complaints had doubled. I should correct this. In 1960, we had 1,205 complaints. In 1961, we had fewer complaints, about 700, which included 318 from two residents in Richmond. In 1962 it went down again to about 500, which included 107 from one resident.

Mr. Brockway: Might not this have represented despair rather than a decrease in the problem?

Mr. Marten: That was a point which occurred to me when I saw the figures, but there is no proof either way. I should like to correct the figure for 1961. There were 932 complaints in 1961 and 541 in 1962.
It has been said that Oslo Airport does not have night flights, but, of course, that


is not a great international terminal, whereas we are talking about London Airport, which is.
Supersonic aircraft have been mentioned. I spoke on this subject in the debate just before Christmas. The question of noise was dealt with then, so I will not deal with it again.
Finally, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chertsey asked whether a document could be put before the House which all hon. Members could study and subsequently debate. This was also mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Curran) and by the hon. Member for Lough-borough. I think that the answer to that is that when the Report of the Wilson Committee on noise comes out—I do not know exactly when that will be; I imagine it will be this summer—the question of aircraft noise will be fully dealt with because the Ministry of Aviation gave very full evidence to the Committee. I think that the time to debate that matter will be when we have the report.
I think that most people recognise that there is a conflict of interest in this question of noise. That has been recognised today. On the one hand, we must have good communications and a thriving civil aviation industry, and we cannot achieve that unless airlines are permitted to make the most economic use of their equipment. On the other hand, there are the claims of people living near the Airport at Heathrow whose peace and quiet are disturbed by aircraft movements. I have studied this whole question in great detail and find it extremely difficult to arrive at an ideal solution which will be fully satisfactory to both sides, but I assure the House that the Minister of Aviation is determined to remain vigilant and will endeavour to hold the balance, as the hon. Member for Eton and Slough said, between these two requirements.
Before I explain what we are doing about the problem, I should like to refer to the Petition which the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington) presented this week, in which local residents asked that jet aircraft should be prohibited from using Heathrow between 11 p.m. and 7 a.m. The hon. Member for Feltham (Mr. Hunter)

asked, why not ban all night flights? The Petition which we received on Tuesday was certainly evidence of the feelings which clearly exist among the 5,500 signatories. We are anxious to limit this disturbance as much as possible, but we cannot impose on airlines prohibitions which would make it impossible for them to continue to operate economically. That is a fact which we must all face.
I believe that most hon. Members who are acquainted with the air transport industry will readily understand the impracticability of a total ban on night operations by jets at Heathrow. International aviation must of necessity—and I repeat, of necessity—be a round-the-clock affair these days.

Mr. Hunter: Could the hon. Gentleman deal with holiday tours? Surely holiday tour flights could be carried out during the day. I do refer not to international American flights, but to European holiday tours.

Mr. Marten: That raises the question of the high utilisation factor of the aircraft. If there are to be cheap holiday tours at low rates—something which is very acceptable to the people of this country—there must be a high utilisation factor of the aircraft. A ban at Heathrow would almost certainly be followed by similar bans at airports overseas. It would be naive to suppose that all foreign countries would adjust their timings expressly to meet the convenience of London.
The hon. Member for Feltham said that New York had banned night flights. I do not think that that is so. It certainly is not so in Tokio, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Chiswick (Mr. D. Smith) referred. The authorities there have not banned night flights, although there is some talk of their thinking about it. But it goes no further than that at this stage.
The effect of a night flight ban at London Airport for eight hours, which is what the Petition asked for, would be that there would be an eight-hour period in New York during which no aircraft could take off for London, and another period of eight hours during which no aircraft from London could land in New York. If New York imposed its own curfew, there would be an eight-hour period when aircraft could not leave


London for New York and another eight hours during which London could not receive aircraft from New York. Obviously, they would not be separate eight-hour periods. They would over-lap because there is a five-hour difference between New York time and Greenwich Mean Time.
The problem of operating international airlines economically under the handicaps which would arise if we banned all night flights here, and if that was followed by two or three other major international airports putting similar restrictions into operation, would force the civil airlines to go out of the long-range business. This is a question of economics and the very expensive equipment in aircraft these days. Many aircraft run into the £2 million bracket and require a very high utilisation factor in order that they pay for themselves and to keep fares reasonably low.
I was challenged by my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge to "come clean" on this matter. Having gone into the problem, I consider that night flights are essential on economic grounds. I hope that I have dealt with the question about the Petition which was raised.
What would be the result if we stopped night flights? First, I agree that people would have peace and would be able to sleep, which we all wish, but it would be a mortal blow for major international air services if this happened round the world and round the clock. British airlines earn about £45 million a year in overseas currency. Secondly, irreparable damage would be done to our great and thriving civil aircraft industry, whose export effort has, since 1951, earned £1,200 million overseas. Thirdly, we would greatly reduce the number of tourists coming to the United Kingdom. In 1962, 3·9 million people came to this country by air, of whom 1,200,000 were foreign tourists who spent here an estimated £100 million.
We would certainly reduce the number of people employed in B.E.A. and B.O.A.C.—at present, 38,000 people are employed in the two Corporations—if we banned night flights. Considerable local unemployment would also result from a decline in airline activity generally. Therefore, I believe that this would be a step backwards when what we are

doing is going forwards and modernising Britain.
Those who advocate stopping night flights completely should ponder on some of the results if that were to happen. I should like to quote from a lecture paper given by Mr. Nivison, of B.O.A.C. on 31st October, 1962, at a conference on noise. He said:
… it will be worth recalling that of all the airports in the world at which B.O.A.C. operates, the lowest noise levels demanded by the authorities are those at London Airport, …
While that is no consolation to those suffering from noise, it puts the question of restrictions on noise in its right perspective.
I realise that this is a question not of completely banning night flights, but of reducing the noise. That is the most reasonable approach to it.

Mr. Cronin: Will the hon. Member address himself to the possibility of there being a few hours free from jet flights during the night?

Mr. Skeffington: The argument about jets which the hon. Member has been adducing refers to long-distance jets, but a large part of the increase of flights is among European flights. Surely these could be spread before 11 p.m. or midnight and after 6 a.m.?

Mr. Marten: Many of these European services are through connections to tie up with long hauls. It is an extremely complicated matter of timetables, with the mixing of long and short hauls. I will go into the question and try to give the hon. Member a more considered answer than that which I have given.

Sir B. Craddock: Will my hon. Friend say something about diversion to Gatwick?

Mr. Marten: I will do so if I am allowed to press on with my speech. It is on the list of questions which I intend to answer.
May I tell the House what we are doing on this matter? The hon. Member for Loughborough told the House several of the things which I shall say, but no doubt the House would like to know what we are doing about this problem. In the reduction of noise lies the solution to the problem. It may not be popular with many people, but it is the right aim. We


have set a limit of 102 perceived noise decibels as the maximum noise level at night far jet operations. This is appreciably less than the noise level of several types of propellor-driven aircraft which have operated from Heathrow in the past. By day the limit is 110 perceived noise decibels.
The air lines have been highly cooperative in their efforts to keep down noise, and our monitoring records show a high degree of compliance with our requirements. During the last six months infringements of the night-time noise limit have averaged only about 2 per cent., and that is a very good record. My hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne asked whether the regulations were being observed, and in that information he has the answer. Many of the planes used—for example, the Comet and the Caravelle—are below the noise maximum which we have set.
If the prescribed noise level is exceeded the matter is immediately taken up with the airline and an explanation sought. The rate of compliance has steadily improved with experience of the operating techniques. When there are breaches they are followed up immediately, but it is emerging from some breaches as take place—about 2 per cent—that the breach is often due to the fact that the pilot considered that safety came first, before noise. I think that in this the pilots are absolutely right.
It is only right to point out clearly the heavy penalty which the airlines have accepted in complying with our nighttime noise limitation at London Airport. For example, with the Boeing 707 it is possible to keep down to the night noise level only at weights of about 210,000 lb., which is well below the maximum operating weight of just over 300,000 lb. This is a severe economic penalty which results in severe financial loss.
As the House knows, for the seven summer months of the year from April to October, a total of 4,800 jet movements at night between 11 p.m. and 7 a.m. have been authorised. This is an increase over last year when the figure was 3,000, but it is only right to point out that although the airlines put in for over 6,000, they were allowed 4,800, which I believe deals with the point made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chertsey, who suggested that

this was an opening bid. The increase which has been allowed is largely due to the fact that there is a rapid replacement of piston and turbo-prop aircraft by the newer jets.
I must point out to the hon. Member for Feltham that we at the Ministry are not responsible for what Swissair prints in its brochures and are not responsible for the fact that Swissair was ahead of the ultimate decision.

Mr. D. Smith: Does my hon. Friend agree—this point was well taken—that the newer jets are noisier than the other aircraft?

Mr. Marten: I am coming to that point. I think that perhaps I had better not give way again, but had better continue with my speech.
The House will see that we are doing our best, through monitoring, to keep the noise down and through a system of scheduling to keep the number of flights under control.
My hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne asked "Why not Gatwick?" There are two reasons. The first is that the runways are not long enough to take the biggest jets and the second is a matter of economics, because it would mean splitting the whole management of an airline's operations. My right hon. Friend will be happy to allow some night flights from Gatwick if the airlines will take them up.
On the more practical side, a great deal of work is being done to lessen the noise problems, particularly at night. This, as I have said, is where we must attack the problem. At Heathrow, ground running is confined to certain areas of the airport where it is screened as far as possible by buildings or by earth banks and concrete walls. My hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne asked whether we have enough baffle walls there. I am advised that we have enough. He asked whether the night running conditions have been relaxed. The answer to that is, "No, they have not".
There is a general curfew on all ground running of engines between 11 p.m. and 7 a.m. except for essential maintenance on aircraft which are required for service the next day. All jet engines must be run in mufflers, and operators are required to keep a log


of any ground running at night. Complaints are investigated immediately.
As the hon. Member for Loughborough appreciates, a great deal of work is also being done by way of research to lessen the noise of jets. This is being carried out in Britain at the National Gas Turbine Establishment, near Farnborough, at the College of Aeronautics, at Cranfield, and at Southampton University. The Government spent £400,000 on this last year. It costs B.O.A.C., which is only one airline, £410,000 a year in extra fuel and lost payload because of the noise; £10,000 a year to maintain the suppressors; and the suppressors themselves cost B.O.A.C. £397,000 as an item of capital equipment. The earth banks and mufflers cost £400,000. Hon. Members will see what one airline is doing in the way of suppressing noise to help the constituents of those who have taken part in the debate.

Mr. Hunter: Mr. Hunter rose—

Mr. Marten: I must press on with my speech.
The hon. Member for Loughborough asked about the new planes and another hon. Member asked whether these would be noisier. The development of the bypass engine, in particular, has reduced jet noise for the same engine power. The Trident will be 8 to 10 perceived noise decibels quieter than the Comet for the same thrust. There are signs of great progress in this respect. The B.A.C.111 is in the same range as the Trident.
I think that the hon. Member for Loughborough has taken this matter up with the British Aircraft Corporation in respect of the VC10. The Corporation tells me that the VC10, with an all-up weight of 299,000 lb., registered 101½ perceived noise decibels, whereas the Super VC10, with an all-up weight of 320,000 lb., registered 102 perceived noise decibels. This is a remarkable feat for this remarkable plane. I am sure that hon. Members agree that this is progress in the right direction.
There are many more points which I would very much like to make. I have the answers to many questions and will send them to hon. Members. But time has run out and I must give way to the next debate.
These are some of the things being done to tackle this most irritating problem. It is a problem which I recognise. I thank my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chertsey for having raised the question and I thank other hon. Members for having contributed to the debate. I hope that they will accept that the Government are doing their best to solve the problem. I should like to end by joining the hon. Member for Eton and Slough, who has now left the Chamber, in expressing sympathy particularly with those who are sick and old and who, perhaps, suffer more than any other people from this very irritating noise.

HONG KONG

1.39 p.m.

Dr. Jeremy Bray: It is many years since the House had an opportunity of giving its full attention in debate to the affairs of Hong Kong. I am sure hon. Members will feel that it is high time that we did so. I trust, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that you will allow this debate to overrun at least to the extent it has been overrun by its predecessor.
Hong Kong is now our most populous dependent territory, with a population higher than that of New Zealand and a foreign trade equal to half that of the whole of India. It has our sole common frontier with the Communist world and it is our most intimate contact with the most numerous race on earth. I think that hon. Members will agree, too, that we have a special responsibility for the 3½ million people, mostly Chinese, who have chosen to live in Hong Kong.
I know that many hon. Members wish to speak so I will plunge straight into the consideration of the future of Hong Kong without dwelling on its great past achievements or upon the spell which it casts over all who visit Hong Kong, a charm which I have known since my childhood, for I was born there. Much needs to be said about the social and political developments within Hong Kong and I hope that my right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Bottomley) will have an opportunity to say something about this. My time is limited, so I shall concentrate on the economic and external affairs of the territory.
The key to the understanding of Hong Kong and of its future is its unique economic position. Hong Kong has enormous overseas trade. Since 1952, when industrialisation and local manufactures began in a big way, Hong Kong has had a very large gap in its balance of visible trade. In 1962, the value of exports was only 66 per cent. of imports, leaving a gap of £140 million in an import bill of £420 million. Most modern economies certainly do have a deficit on visible trade, including our own, but whereas our gap has not exceeded 10 per cent. in any recent year, Hong Kong's is 34 per cent. India certainly has a comparable gap, but this is in a country which has an enormously larger domestic economy, and in India it is covered by carefully negotiated loans between Governments. Hong Kong receives no Government loans.
Some of the gap in the balance of Hong Kong's trade is filled by invisible earnings, notably from tourism, but undoubtedly the large remaining gap indicates a very substantial inflow of capital. The source of this capital, I understand, is mainly overseas Chinese all over South-East Asia who are investing their money in Hong Kong, and who find it profitable to do so. No one seems able to say just how large is this capital inflow. One reason for this lack of statistics—which is being remedied now—is the happy position of the Hong Kong Government in having practically no national debt.
As the Government have not had to borrow money they are not bothered about having to pay it back, or paying interest on debt. So the Hong Kong Government say that the balance of payments is self-regulating, surely an ideal economy in the eyes of the hon. Members opposite. The Government just do not have to know what is going on in the way that we have to know in this country. This is fine so long as the capital inflow continues. Even if the capital inflow falls off the Government can still avoid embarrassment to themselves or to the currency by reducing their spending on capital goods, on capital programmes. It would be the private citizen, the ordinary worker, who would suffer.
Much of the money coming into Hong Kong is now being invested in property. The supply of land is very limited and

it all belongs to the Government and the Government make a good deal of money by the sale of land leases at prices which put London's land prices quite in the shade. Government income from this source in 1962–63 doubled over that of the previous year to over £11 million, and it is sufficient to finance the whole of the Government's impressive public works building programme for housing, education, and health services. So the private property investor from abroad is financing the Government as well as the private building in the economy.
There is, of course, a spiral in this investment boom. It is highly profitable to invest in property which is to house the people who are to build the next property in which one is to invest, and so on. The Hong Kong Government are very well aware of the dangers of such a boom running away to the point where it "busts", with a fall off in new investment destroying the profitability of former investments. In his Budget speech on 27th February, the Financial Secretary in Hong Kong said that one of his
nightmares is that by rapid and wasteful expansion we come to the end of our resources with an incomplete and unbalanced structure".
In other words, it is necessary to build up Hong Kong's industry and trade so that it can earn a sound living. Certainly, no one development will secure this, but it does seem to me that a new element is needed in the situation other than the old battle of tariffs and quotas.
It would be helpful, at this point, to consider the political position of Hong Kong. It exists because it is useful to China, not only as a meeting place with the outside world but as a very substantial source of foreign exchange. Hong Kong imports, mainly of food, from China in 1962 were £75 million. Its exports to China were £5 million, leaving China with foreign exchange earnings of £70 million.
From China's point of view this meeting place with the outside world is as convenient in British hands as any. As an independent territory everyone recognises that it would become a cockpit for the struggle between Chinese Nationalists and Communists which could only lead to its absorption into China, with the loss of its value as a meeting place. Also,


in this House we should recognise that the integrity and efficiency of the Administration in Hong Kong is seen to contribute greatly to the well-being of the people of Hong Kong. That is not to say, of course, that there is no urgent need to continue reform and advance.
Looking to the future, if we can build up a sufficient mutual interest between Peking and ourselves in the continuing prosperity of Hong Kong, then, when the time comes at the end of the century, I can see no reason why the lease of the New Territories should not be renewed, with the courtesy of a host providing a guestroom for an honoured guest who brings long life and happiness.
We have, then, a dual task. We have to build up a viable economy in Hong Kong which will not depend on the capital inflow continuing for ever, and we have also to build up mutual interest between Peking and ourselves in maintaining and increasing the prosperity of Hong Kong. This debate occurs at a time when the Chinese Vice-Minister for Trade, Mr. Lou, is on a visit to London. I am sure that we all hope that his visit has been worth while and that it will lead to growth of trade and good relations between his country and ours.
China is today looking for practical technological "know-how", for experience in modern industry, for plant and machinery for advanced engineering products for the manufacture of fertilisers, chemicals, steel, and so on. This is precisely the kind of industry which Hong Kong lacks, partly because of its shortage of land and water, but mainly because of a lack of a large domestic market for products with high transport costs.
If such industry were placed in Hong Kong, China would hardly wish to find the foreign exchange to buy its products, so that would not help. On the other hand, such industry could be built up by China under her own control and ownership on her own territory, next to Hong Kong and complementary to Hong Kong's industry. A modern fertiliser, oil, petrochemical and steel complex needs access to deep water berths for 100,000 ton tankers and ore carriers which could well be built round Hong Kong.
No less important than access for bulk materials is nearness of supporting in-

dustry, trade, and commerce, air communications and know-how. All of these can be found in Hong Kong, where most major British firms are already well represented and where development could proceed rapidly and efficiently. With Canton the centre of communications in South China, with ample crude oil supplies available in the world, with the rich iron ore deposits in Hainan, the river estuary between Canton and Hong Kong is the natural site for this type of heavy industrial development in South China.
China, naturally, would wish to shape such development to meet her own need to build up agriculture and the infrastructure of industrialisation. So it would be more an industrial development exercise than merely an old-fashioned spot sale. Payment would need to be arranged so that it was made out of, for example, the increased food production which would be achieved by the use of fertiliser from new fertiliser plants. China would, therefore, ask for credits. The British Government in London could easily raise loans in Hong Kong to finance such credits, provided that they carried a guarantee from London, for which, in turn, London would obtain a guarantee from Peking. An arrangement on these lines could well provide an export trade from this country of £30 or £40 million a year for many years.
Such a development scheme would give Hong Kong the solid base which it needs. By industrialising and raising the standard of living in China, it would also avoid the sharp economic differences between the two sides of the border which can make it humanly and. therefore, politically unstable. It would give both China and ourselves a major interest in the continued prosperity of Hong Kong.
This may seem to many a daring scheme, but I ask the House to consider whether anything less is possible. It seems to me to be in line with the most constructive efforts of British foreign policy in the past. It is, of course, a matter for us in Westminster, and we should not expect—we obviously cannot expect—the Hong Kong Government to take the initiatives involved. Certainly, everything will depend on the reaction of people in Hong Kong and of Peking, and, in turn, their reaction will depend


on their judgment of the British attitude. To them I would merely say that, for what my judgment as a back bencher is worth, the British Government would consider some development on these lines with interest.
Any such development would, of course, have international repercussions. I am sure that everyone in the House will be thinking of India to which we owe our especial loyalty as a free and democratic member of the Commonwealth whose own development is our dearest wish. Development of relations such as those I have described with China through Hong Kong would not be possible if China and India were engaged in a border war. l have this week called upon the Indian High Commissioner to tell him that this proposal which I am making, far from being unfriendly to India, is intended to cement the foundations of peace. I think this is understood. No one understands more clearly than our friends and colleagues in New Delhi that a necessary foundation for peace is the end of poverty and hunger and the development of the economy in China as in India itself. We have supported many projects such as this in India, and I earnestly hope that we shall support many greater projects. This proposal in relation to China and Hong Kong is therefore in no sense competitive with India, a country which has an even greater stake in the peace of South-East Asia than we have.
To sum up, I would ask whether we see Hong Kong like the string of crackers with which our Chinese friends so delight to welcome us, flashing and banging and then leaving the deepened stillness of a tropical night; or whether we see Hong Kong like a seed which will grow into a tree which the children and the children's children of all those millions in China and in Hong Kong will see, and seeing, give thanks for the labour, the wisdom and the piety of their ancestors.
I do not expect the Government to reply today to the points which I have made, but I would ask them to consider what they should do and to listen to the reaction and responses of our friends in the East; and then to respond with vigour.

1.56 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Royle: I congratulate the bon. Member for Middlesbrough, West (Dr. Bray) upon initiating this debate. All of us who are interested in Hong Kong welcome the chance to talk about the Colony at Westminster. I have visited Hong Kong twice during the past year, and have just returned from there.
While, naturally, all of us on both sides of the House were very interested in the hon. Member's thoughtful suggestions about the Colony's future, I feel that much of what he put forward is not practical at this moment. I believe that the more appropriate way to strengthen Hong Kong is to strengthen her trade position, that is, by strengthening her ties with and her markets in South-East Asia and other parts of the world. While it is right that we should all give careful thought to such problems as the hon. Member put forward with such care, I feel that there are other matters that we ought to discuss today.
The first thing that struck me when I heard that there was to be this debate was the vital necessity for the future of Hong Kong that the confidence of businessmen and other countries in Hong Kong should continue. When I returned from Hong Kong at the end of January I was wholeheartedly impressed with the drive and dynamism which exists there. It has a population of 3½ million people, increasing at a rate at the moment of nearly 250,000 per year. Some of this is natural increase and some is the result of illegal immigration, with which I shall deal later, if there is time. It is, therefore, vital for Hong Kong that it should expand to keep pace with the population increase. This expansion can be done and is being done through the drive and vigour of the Chinese community and the help that it gets from our excellent administration in the Colony.
During a short visit to Red China, to Canton, I saw the industrial situation—I do not know whether the hon. Member has recently done so—in Kwantung Province, of the Chinese People's Republic. This is another reason which leads me to believe that now is not the moment to put forward economic suggestions for building industry in the way the hon. Member suggested. I do not believe that it could have practical acceptance from Peking at this moment.
The population growth of the Colony, which, as far as one can see, will continue for some years ahead, will be increased even more by the steep rise of school-leavers that will soon be injected into the labour market. Last year, the economic expansion reached a phenomenal pitch, being about 15 per cent. increase of the gross national product. That was a magnificent achievement.
It is very important that the Government here should continue to encourage this expansion, for there is no home market in Hong Kong. Its rival, Japan, has a home market. Hong Kong has to look to the United Kingdom for the home sales on which to base its export drive, which is of such great assistance to the United Kingdom. Exports of locally manufactured goods increased last year by nearly 13 per cent. over 1961 to reach a record level of £200 million. I am convinced that the Colony should press forward with its exports to South-East Asia, helped by the United Kingdom Government.
Here I would pay tribute to the Colony's Department of Trade and Industry, which is an outstandingly well-run Government Department, as hon. Members on both sides of the House will agree. The Department is investigating the possibility of bringing the benefits of Export Credits Guarantee to the Colony. Under our present arrangements for export credits guarantees, these guarantees cannot be applied to our overseas territories, according to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade. Nevertheless, the Board of Trade is being extremely helpful in assisting Hong Kong to find methods of using the E.C.G.D. arrangement.
When the Common Market negotiations regrettably collapsed, some people felt that the problems which Hong Kong faced in the immediate future had been swept away, but that is not so. The main problem is always there. If Hong Kong stands still it dies. If it is to continue it must expand, and it must continue to expand. That is why I have emphasised expansion so strongly. No one can avoid being immensely impressed by the Colony. Its factories, despite the criticisms made by hon. Members on both sides of the House in the past, as a whole have a standard of welfare, amenity and organisation with which

few in this country can compare. I have visited the magnificent textile mills and factories on the Kowloon side of Hong Kong, which are a very great credit to the colony.

Mr. Ernest Thornton: Has the hon. Gentleman visited some of the small industrial establishments?

Mr. Royle: I have visited a firm called the North Pole Knitwear Company. It has a small factory off Nathan Road which employs 16 to 20 women in a small room at the top of a housing block. I have visited all types of factories in Hong Kong. I think that what the hon. Gentleman is getting at is the misunderstanding many people show in trying to compare conditions generally in Hong Kong with conditions in Europe. In fairness, one must compare Hong Kong's conditions basically with conditions in other South-East Asian countries.
By that, I do not mean to say that many of the factory conditions there are not of a far greater standard than many such conditions in this country and in many other European countries. But we must resist the tendency, shown by many people who have not been there, to say that Hong Kong is full of "sweat shops." That is not true. I have investigated this carefully, and I believe, that it is time that a sense of proportion was brought to bear in looking at the industrial setup in Hong Kong. It really is very impressive. I do not think that I have ever seen welfare facilities on such a scale and so well organised as these I saw on my recent visit.
Also improving rapidly is the quality of the goods produced in the Colony. This is something of which many people are aware in Hong Kong, regarding it as of great importance. In many cases they are competing with the products of Japan, which have shown a startling increase in quality during the last two or three years. The drive for better quality is being backed by the Federation of Chinese Manufacturers in the Colony, the Chamber of Commerce and other bodies, to try to bring quality standards up to the best in the world. I believe that they have already made a successful start.
The range of goods is already very wide indeed. One firm which is expanding is Haking Industries, on the Victoria side of Hong Kong, producing cameras and very fine binoculars. It did extremely


well at a recent trade fair in Germany, where it was in competition with some of the finest binocular makers in Germany and in Europe.
It is typical that the drive, energy and increase in quality and workmanship in Hong Kong have produced another criticism over certificates of origin. Some people do not seem to believe that a certificate of origin indicating that the manufacture of an article has been in Hong Kong is to be trusted. I went into this criticism carefully on my second visit to Hong Kong. I am convinced that the certification procedure carried out by the Chamber of Commerce with the assistance of the Chamber of Commerce and other bodies is first class. I have no doubt that a certificate saying "Empire Made", or "Made in Hong Kong" means what it says. This has been confirmed by the Board of Trade.
The tourist industry should not be forgotten. Under Major Harry Stanley, who is the director of the tourist board in Hong Kong, this industry has been expanding in a big way in the last two years. Two large and very imposing looking hotels are going up on the front at Victoria, and although they are not quite as tall as the new Hilton Hotel, in London they are just as impressive. Many of the hotels have Chinese managements. This will encourage tourists to visit Hong Kong and will help the invisible exports of the Colony.
Equally, the Hong Kong Government are playing their part, although I do not want to go into that in detail now. To meet the expanding population education must obviously be improved. At the moment, Hong Kong is opening one new State or private school every four days in the Colony, which I think, is a rate not exceeded anywhere else in the world. One new eight-storey block of flats is opened every ten days. These blocks are impressive and are vital if the Hong Kong Government are to keep up with the expansion in population.
Another development by the Government of great importance for the future, and in which great strides are being made, is the Plover Cove water scheme for the New Territories. My hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain), who has visited it, will have been able to look with a more experienced eye than I have. This

scheme, which is to cost many millions of pounds over the next few years, is well under way and tenders have already been given for the second stage which entails the building of a £10 million dam. All in all, the House can be proud of the way in which Hong Kong is growing and expanding, something it must do if it is to keep going during the years ahead and something which I have no doubt that it will do.
However, there are one or two slightly darker spots on the horizon and I should like particularly to mention one of them. It is the position of Hong Kong's trade with the United States of America. There is no doubt that over the last few years, with the Colony's agreement, there has been a quota on sales of textiles from the Colony to the United States and the United Kingdom under the Geneva agreement, but there is also no doubt that the United States is deliberately making things more and more difficult for the Hong Kong industrialist and the Hong Kong shipper and has been doing so for some time over a large range of other products.
The United States is putting a great deal of money into South-East Asia, wisely in my opinion. I have visited Thailand, Malaya, South Vietnam and other countries in that part of the world and one cannot but be immensely impressed with the efforts, the skills, the teachers and the technicians which the United States is putting into South-East Asia to help to raise the living standards for the millions who live there.
It has no need to do this with Hong Kong, which runs on its own and which does not cost the British taxpayer a penny. Indeed, it sends £1½ million a year towards our defence budget. At the same time, Hong Kong would welcome some assistance from the United States by way not of grant or aid, but of opening its own doors a little and making it easier for Hong Kong manufacturers who would like to sell in the United States.
Another factor comes into this, a political factor. It concerns the Red Chinese element in any of the products made in the Colony. While I was in Hong Kong, I was told a story about some shrimps, which shrimps were caught in the bays and coves around the colony and were then canned or packed to be exported to the United States. United States


representatives inquired from Colony officials where the shrimps came from. Did they come from British or Chinese territorial waters? As it was not allowed to import Chinese shrimps into the United States, and as it was clearly impossible for the Hong Kong people to tell exactly where the shrimps had started their journey, whether in Hong Kong or Chinese waters, this trade came to an end overnight, causing great unease and unemployment among the fishing community of Hong Kong.
An improvement in the United States attitude towards such imports would be greatly appreciated in Hong Kong and the United States authorities should reconsider their attitude. Direct aid is not needed. Hong Kong needs help and assistance not as open-handed gifts, but in liberalising trade and allowing goods which have started their life in Hong Kong to enter the United States.
People in this country have recently been reading of the operations of bomb squads which have been going into the Chinese People's Republic with the backing of Chiang Kai-shek and the Kuomintang Nationalist Government. It is suspected that many of these squads have been operating or endeavouring to operate out of the Colony of Hong Kong.
I should like my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to press his noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in his turn, to take strong action by asking the United States authorities to bring pressure on Chiang Kai-shek and the Formosan Government to cease these activities from Hong Kong. They are not only upsetting to the people who live in the Colony, but also upsetting to the Chinese who live on the other side of the border and who suffer from these pinpricks, which neither politically not militarily, can in any way assist the Formosan régime. I hope that my hon. Friend will pass on this protest.
There is no doubt that Hong Kong is the shop window of the West in the Far East. It is a community of its own and is slowly but surely being accepted throughout South-East Asia as a community. It is a living symbol of Chinese versatility and hard work allied to the genius of British colonial administration at its best. I have no doubt that it will continue to expand and prosper in the

years ahead so long as we at Westminster and the people of this country do not forget it and as long as the Government continue to assist the Colony on its way.

2.17 p.m.

Mr. H. Rhodes: Coming as I do from an area which is traditionally antagonistic to cheap competition from the Far East, whenever I go to Hong Kong I go to the border for correction. I look across the border to a small village which looks for all the world like a Cotswold village in Red China. There I see a large tower which is, or used to be, a pawnbroker's shop where the rich man of the village took in the winter clothes of the peasants after he had dished out the seed. He did not make his bargain with the peasant for his crops until the cold weather came again and then he gave out the clothing. That was what the tower was for. It was not a church. Coming back into Hong Kong I always appreciate that the people there come from that kind of background, possibly improved under the Communist régime, although that is a matter of opinion.
In many ways, Hong Kong is an anachronism. We have a tenuous hold on a tiny bit of seaboard belonging to a nation with 650 million inhabitants which is destined to be a great Power. A large part of the Colony, Kowloon and the New Territories, is leased for a further thirty-five years. The only security we have is a small military force which could not, and would not, engage in a shooting war if it came to a showdown. The population has a large Communist element and the remainder is fundamentally loyal to China.
Apart from a few Chinese who could be counted on both hands, none owes avowed allegiance to the British Crown. Couple all that with the massive influx of refugees, not necessarily fleeing from a Communist régime as such but seeking food, shelter and an opportunity to live and to learn the technical "know-how" of the spanking, up-to-date industrial economy in Hong Kong, and we have the background to the situation there.
Those are the problems. How has the administration shaped up to its job? There is not time to expand on this because other hon. Members wish to take part in the debate.
First, I would like to deal with criticism of the entrepreneur and the industrialist. Without the adventurous industrialist and entrepreneur in Hong Kong, even of the swashbuckling types that we have met there, developments could not have taken place. To have gone round the bourses of the world cap in hand for the means to do the job in some other way would have ended in dismal failure because of the tenure of occupation alone. We know what results have been achieved.
Secondly, have they fed the population. I suppose that I have taken more than 100 photographs each time I have been there, mainly with the intention of seeing whether the people were suffering from starvation. There may have been some evidence of it when I was there in 1958 but I saw none the last time I went there. Thirdly, shelter. They house 4,000 people every nine days.
Fourthly, education. When I think of the 700 senior students who faced me at the Tewang college run by a friend of mine who over twenty years ago started the college with three students, and now has 700 students who attend in three shifts and are likely to move into magnificent new premises this year, I am proud not only of a man from my locality who has dedicated his life to this job but of the Government.
We have heard a lot about representative Government; the desire to broaden the basis of the Government and to bring in electoral reform. Let us be careful. Make no mistake about this. This regime in Hong Kong is acceptable to China. A less prosperous Hong Kong would not be, and the road to ruin would be to introduce the political forms of Singapore with the trappings of this place, which are completely foreign to the concept of the Chinese in Singapore and Hong Kong. We have left confusion and bitterness in Singapore. If we had been able to leave in Singapore a legacy of a built-up industrial economy which would have been the hub of prosperity in Malaysia, I should have been prouder of the British régime there.
Whether Hong Kong is under Britain or China will not matter very much in fifty years' time. What will matter is that at a time when the Far East was struggling to break the shackles of poverty and ignorance we made a signifi-

cant contribution. I owe a debt of gratitude to Hong Kong, because it has shown me what my poorer fellows can do to overcome poverty and ignorance when they have a chance to do so. So much so that during the last few years I suppose I have lectured to 5,000 senior students in my constituency with a view to giving them some idea of how other people less fortunate than they have taken the chances offered to them.
Industrialisation on a large scale is necessary to deal with the problem of poverty in Hong Kong. It is no use the Western countries thinking that they will solve poverty in the Far East by arrangements about commodity prices alone or plans of that description. If we think that by keeping down, and keeping to ourselves if we can, the means of manufacture, we can keep the people in Malaya, Indonesia, Laos, and so on, quiet on the basis of commodity prices, we ought to think again.
Hong Kong is an industrial beacon beckoning the poverty-stricken folks in the Far East and giving them hope that at any rate industrialisation will provide them with a chance to live.

2.26 p.m.

Sir William Teeling: I listened with immense interest to the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, West (Dr. Bray), but I think that he is looking a little too far ahead. If the hon. Gentleman wants to look to the future, he should look to the more immediate future. Because of what is happening in the world today, how can we tell what the situation will be thirty-five years from now? We cannot tell whether by that time we shall not have some international system in Hong Kong.
I do not regard Hong Kong so much as a Colony as a trading post. It is different from our other Colonies. There are only about 50,000 British European residents there. Of those, nearly 30,000 belong to the Hong Kong Shanghai Bank and stay there for only a few years. Most of the other 3 million people there are not British subjects at all, and it must not be forgotten that although they come out of Red China a large number of them are not citizens of Red China. Many of them consider themselves to be citizens of Nationalist China.

Mr. A. Royle: My hon. Friend said that 30,000 of the people there were employees of the Hong Kong Shanghai Bank. Is that figure correct?

Sir W. Teeling: I think so, but we can always check it.

Dr. Bray: They are not all in Hong Kong.

Sir W. Teeling: No, but they go backwards and forwards. There are more than 30,000 employees of the bank, a large number of whom stay there for only a few years, but that really has very little to do with the point at issue. The real point is how many Chinese there are on the island.
The Americans have strong feelings about the whole Red China situation, and if we are to be practical we have to face the fact that even if Red China ever wanted to take over Hong Kong there would be both American and quite strong Formosan military elements which would do their best to stop this, and it might well lead to a third world war. We must therefore try to appreciate the position of the Hong Kong Governor and his Executive Council, who have to realise that the vast majority of people on the island are not British subjects and that there is almost as strong a pro-Nationalist element as a Communist one, and that therefore the Governor should steer a course between the two. In the meantime, the Governor has to do everything he can to improve Hong Kong as a trading centre for the whole of South-East Asia, and, as has been pointed out, almost the whole of South-East Asia is closely in touch with the United States.
What we have to look to in the future is seeing how far we can trade with Communist China while, at the same time, avoiding cutting across arrangements already made with the United States so that we do not put into Communist China anything that could be of military use for attacking India or other parts of the world. This being so, we must stress that our own British elements there and the very fine types of Chinese who have lived and worked there are now doing, and have been doing over the years since the war, an immense job in rehousing the immigrants and finding work for them. This country would do well to examine how they manage to put

up so many houses so quickly, efficiently and cheaply.
We are told that the Chinese Nationalists are using Hong Kong as a jumping-off ground for different organisations, but hon. Members should read some of the relevant literature, such as the book A Man Must Choose which Longman's have just published, by a former Communist journalist. He gives a full description of his experiences with the Communist elements in Hong Kong in their efforts to control various organisations in a not very different way from American gangsters. In spite of that, the Government have immensely improved the whole situation in Hong Kong and have made it a window for England in South-East Asia. We have vastly improved our position there. A great deal more can be done through the Hong Kong banks. They are responsible for the fact that there is no debt to the British Government, and we remember how wonderfully in the year after the War they gradually redeveloped the whole area after the chaos of the Japanese invasion.
I submit, therefore, that in future we must make a point of remembering the difficult position of the British element in Hong Kong and the fact that the Government there have to bear in mind that they have only small British forces at their disposal and must be as friendly as possible with both sides if they are to steer through—

Mr. Philip Noel-Baker: What does the hon. Member mean by "both sides"?

Sir W. Teeling: In Hong Kong? I explained that there are 3 million Chinese there, both Communists and Nationalists, who are not British subjects. Our problem is concerned with the Red Chinese who have come in and have not taken British nationality who still consider themselves to belong to the mainland and who can go back at any time, and also the people who have remained in Hong Kong since the Kuomintang days on the mainland or have come there as refugees since and have never wanted to be Communists.

2.33 p.m.

Mr. Ernest Thornton: I also want to thank my hon. Friend the


Member for Middlesbrough, West (Dr. Bray) for giving us the opportunity of this debate. I am second to none in my appreciation of the massive problem which Hong Kong has faced and the massive attempt that has been made to deal with this problem, but as the debate has gone I feel that altogether too complacant and too rosy a picture has been painted.
The suggestion was made that comparisons should be made between Hong Kong and other Asian countries. If the hon. Member for Richmond, Surrey (Mr. A. Royle) will do me the honour of reading what I had to say in the debate on Hong Kong he will find that my one criticism was that conditions there have failed to match up to Asiatic standards. I called the attention of the House five years ago to the fact that industrial workers in Hong Kong, women and young persons, were working 12-hour shifts seven days a week with only four days holiday a year. As a result of my repeatedly bringing this to the attention of the House, Miss Ogilvy was sent out by the Colonial Secretary and new labour legislation came into force providing for a maximum 10-hour day six days a week for women and young persons.
I ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies today, from his personal interest, to follow up this matter. Five years ago this was said to be a step towards achieving Asiatic standards. A maximum 9-hour day is prescribed by law in Asiatic countries for women and young persons. I ask the hon. Gentleman to look into this with a view to the next step being taken to reduce the maximum number of hours worked by women and young people and also to satisfy himself that the present regulations are being honoured and that the honouring is being supervised.

2.35 p.m.

Mr. A. G. Bottomley: It is a happy coincidence that this, my first speech from the Opposition Front Bench since my return to the House, should be on an occasion which provides an opportunity to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, West (Dr. Bray). I think I carry the whole House with me when I say that my hon. Friend spoke on the subject of the debate with great knowledge and distinction.
It is remarkable that when Hong Kong was first becoming associated with this country Lord Palmerston said that he saw little value in the acquisition of this barren island with hardly a house upon it. Today we refer to its being very densely populated, and I join with those who have paid tribute to the people and the Administration there who are doing a fine job. Unfortunately, too many people look upon Hong Kong merely as a dangerous competitor, whereas it is an economic miracle.
The relationship of Hong Kong with the mainland had always been concentrated round trade. We have to acknowledge that the pattern of trade today is changing, and not only for political reasons. The Chinese People's Republic has its State agencies and is able to deal directly with manufacturers in Europe, because it is able to place such large orders. The middlemen in Hong Kong have suffered because of this. Eastern European countries are also producing goods which previously came from Hong Kong. The Chinese have been able to by-pass Hong Kong because of the way in which they have been able to develop the former French concession, the port now called Tsam Kong. The China trade, which was at one time about one-third of the total trade with Hong Kong, has now fallen to not much more than one-eighth of the total. This would have been disastrous to a less enterprising people, but Hong Kong saw that it had to change its trade tactics and it concentrated its efforts upon the export trade.
Since 1950, the export trade has increased from 5 per cent. to 70 per cent. of production. Textiles, the largest and most important industry, are experiencing considerable marketing difficulties. This is particularly true of trade with the United States and the United Kingdom. There is hope for the Hong Kong authorities, however, because at a recent G.A.T.T. conference a five-year agreement was signed by 19 major producing and importing countries to ease restrictions on cotton textiles.
There is a need for the diversification of industry. The Hong Kong authorities have rightly noted this. New enterprises, such as the manufacture of transistor radios and plastic flowers, are increasing at a rapid rate. New factories are being built everywhere. With the demand for


labour there has been an improvement in wages, which is pleasing. It is also encouraging to find that some of the trade unions, especially those which have made it their particular concern to represent their members' interests in better conditions of service, are building up into efficient and well-organised unions.
I think I ought to make a plea that the Goverment should keep a closer eye on wages and conditions of service in present circumstances. They should ask employers to do all possible to recognise bona fide trade unions. The Chinese People's Republic will be interested in seeing the living standards of people in Hong Kong improved, because this will mean that there will be increasing demands for meat, vegetables, fish and other foods, as well as for the traditional exports, As my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, West said, this trade is of great value to the Chinese, because it provides them with millions of pounds of sterling with which they can buy goods elsewhere.
We in Britain have a great opportunity to recognise this new and developing pattern of trade in Hong Kong. Hong Kong could become for us in this country the springboard for a new and much needed British commercial drive and effort in the Far East. For that to succeed there must be stability in Hong Kong. This calls for greater equality and improved social services. I think it will be recognised that the rate of Income Tax in the Colony is ridiculously low. There ought to be some way in which those who have greater wealth could help to provide for improved social services. This is particularly so in the case of health services.
As hon. Members will appreciate, I could develop what I am saying much more fully, but I shall not do that so that I shall not overrun the time. I ask the Minister to consider the question of health improvement and the need to spend more on education, particularly in building and developing a teachers' training college. He might also give consideration to urging the establishment of a television service on the lines of that of the B.B.C. That in its turn would prove very valuable, not only as a means of communication, but in helping the education of the masses.
The people of Hong Kong should be

given a greater say in their political future. There is only one elected institution in the Colony—the urban council—and the franchise is limited to professional people and householders. The Under-Secretary might reply that when the people have the chance to vote they do not do so and that only about one in five use their votes. I think the reason for that is that the urban council is not allowed to discuss any important matters. Those are all reserved to the Governor and an appointed legislative council and an appointed executive council.
I am not for a moment suggesting that the time has come for a radical change. Good reasons have been given this afternoon why that should not be so. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes), who speaks with such knowledge and authority about Hong Kong. There is a need now for some reorganisation of local government and certainly for a more representative legislative council. I ask the Under-Secretary to ask his right hon. Friend to give these matters consideration, because it is my convinced opinion that the objective should be to provide a forum for the political expression of the vast majority of the people who live in Hong Kong.
I mentioned to the Under-Secretary that I have had a letter in which there were allegations of interference with the freedom of the Press and deprivation of the liberty of the subject. That was the case of a man named Chan-Kin-Chin. I go no further now than to say that if the Under-Secretary can undertake to look into that matter, I shall be grateful.
The peaceful development of Hong Kong could be upset by political difficulties with the mainland. Fortunately there have been very few problems and little difficulty except in the one period in 1955 when the Chinese People's Republic said that the Nationalists' representatives were going to do something to interfere with the transference of Chinese representatives to the Bandung Conference. Unfortunately, a disaster occurred and fifteen Chinese and others going to the conference lost their lives in an air crash. The Republican Government recognised that the authorities did all they could to prevent that and tried to bring the culprits to justice. Except for that incident, things have run rather more smoothly than


before 1955 when the Chinese People's Republic came to power.
As we have heard from an hon. Member in this debate, and earlier from my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mr. P. Noel-Baker), however, Nationalist agents are busy at work on the mainland once more. This should be stamped out. I join with others who have said that if representations can be made to the United States urging them to do all possible to stop the Formosan Government from employing their agents in Hong Kong this should be done. My right hon. Friend raised the matter earlier on 5th March and the Under-Secretary replied that some cases were still under investigation. I do not know if he is in a position to add further to that statement. If so, we shall listen to him with interest.
In circumstances such as those in Hong Kong—we have to face it—there is always a threat of trouble. This reinforces the need for us to keep our garrison in Hong Kong. In connection with that, it is worth recalling that the Army last year rendered valuable help at the time of the typhoon. It provided food and shelter, material and transport, and in addition, helped to clear up the damage caused by the typhoon.
Whatever the future holds for Hong Kong, we cannot avoid recognising that geographically, ethnically and culturally Hong Kong is a segment of China, but it is also a piece of Europe which has helped to bring European culture and trade to the frontiers of China. If we can give our continued support, and if Hong Kong can continue to run its affairs as in the past, it may prove to be a more fertile and stable meeting ground for East and West than almost any other centre in the world.

2.48 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Nigel Fisher): I am glad that the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, West (Dr. Bray) initiated this debate today. I am very grateful for the constructive way in which he and other hon. Members including the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Bottomley) have approached this subject. I am sure that it is a good thing for the House of Commons to take an interest in places for which the Colonial Office, and, therefore, ultimately the House of Commons, is still responsible.
This is one of the occasions when I feel that back benchers have rather the edge an the Front Benches. I am very conscious of the fact that every hon. Member who has taken part in this debate, except the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East and myself, knows Hong Kong. We have not yet had the pleasure of visiting it. I hope that we shall have the chance of doing so before long.
My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Surrey (Mr. A. Royle) was certainly right in saying that a great many people are most keen to go there nowadays. Tourist traffic to Hong Kong is now quite a big thing. Hardly a week goes by in which I do not have to write a letter to the hospitable—but, I think, long-suffering—Governor asking him to entertain or give hospitality to someone who wants to go there. The amount of traffic is extraordinary. Hon. Members, whether on the Government or the Opposition side of the House, and whether they know Hong Kong or not, are all agreed on one thing—that this is a remarkable Colony. Its story is a success story if ever there was one. I find that even Treasury Ministers smile with approval when I mention Hong Kong, because it is one of the few Colonies which does not make large demands on the British taxpayer.
Many points have been made in this debate and I shall take them individually rather than make a set speech in reply. The most important general theme of the debate has been industry and trade because, of course, Hong Kong lives by trade and industry, as, indeed, we do. She has no natural resources and can only support her very large population by her industrial activities. I am quite sure, from all that I have been told, that the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes) is quite right about this: there has been really remarkable industrial progress in recent years. But, of course Hong Kong has to find and maintain markets far this increased production, and that is the main problem.
She had what was traditionally an entrepôt economy; but owing to her increase in population and the decline of her re-export trade, Hong Kong has been compelled to expand other sections of her economy and especially her manufactur-


ing industry. In 1962, there were over 7,300 registered factories, employing about 300,000 people, three times as many as ten years ago. That is quite good, but the problem is that 40 per cent. of the population is under 15 years of age and this means a very large increase in the labour force in the next few years. I think that an increase of about 25 per cent. is anticipated by 1967.
I am advised by the Governor that exports must expand by at least 10 per cent. a year if widespread unemployment is to be avoided. That rate of expansion was, in fact, achieved in 1962. But it is, of course, very difficult to secure the expansion of exports when there is always increasing pressure from outside, as we know—and I know the hon. Gentleman's special interest—to restrict Hong Kong's access to overseas markets. One can understand that because it is in the interests of the domestic producers, and we are very much concerned in it.
At the moment, exports of textiles to this country are governed by the voluntary "Lancashire Agreement", but there is this pressure from other countries, as we know—from the United States, Western Germany, Norway and Sweden—and these requests for restraint are very unwelcome to Hong Kong. But she is anxious to preserve her well-deserved reputation for being co-operative and helpful about this, and she will do her best, I know, to meet these requests; but, naturally, they are not particularly welcome to her.
I recognise, and I am sure that Hong Kong recognises, the weakness and danger of her dependence upon the exports of the textile and clothing industries, which were 52 per cent. of all her domestic exports in 1962, and also her dependence on a few major markets such as ourselves and the United States. I believe that there is a growing realisation in Hong Kong that she really needs to diversify her production and to open up new markets. For that reason, there is a concentration on trade promotion in the areas where the Colony's trade is relatively underdeveloped at the moment, because it is hoped by opening up these markets to lessen the present dependence of Hong Kong on her export trade with the United Kingdom.
I think that that is wise. But I should

say that a trade mission, sponsored by the London and Birmingham Chambers of Commerce, visited Hong Kong last year and produced a useful survey of new import and export opportunities. Of couse, facilities for trade promotion already exist through the Hong Kong Government Office in London and the United Kingdom Trade Commissioner in Hong Kong.
On the particular point about China, to which the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East devoted a good deal of his speech, I do not think that Hong Kong is likely to neglect her opportunities for expanding trade and activities between the two countries, and I think that she would very much welcome increased trade with China. In 1962, the Colony imported £75 million worth of goods, chiefly foodstuffs, from China, amounting to 18 per cent. of her total imports. But Hong Kong's exports to China in 1962 were valued at only £5·3 million, which is only a fraction of her total exports and, indeed, of her prewar exports to China; aid re-exports accounted for £4·8 million of the £5·3 million.
As hon. Members know, the Chinese Vice-Minister for Foreign Trade is just concluding a visit to this country and it is too early to be precise as to what will result from the visit and about the prospect for increased trade between China and the United Kingdom. But if there is a part which Hong Kong can play in advancing that trade, I am sure that the services and facilities which Hong Kong has to offer will be readily available, and, certainly, we should encourage her to take that line, and that Hong Kong also, if China so wishes, will take up any opportunities to increase trade on her own account. The hon. Gentleman made some new suggestions,—very interesting to me and, I think, to my office—on this theme and going somewhat beyond it, and I shall certainly have these examined.
The hon. Member for Farnworth (Mr. Thornton) mentioned labour conditions in industry, minimum age for employment and the conditions for women and young people. That of course, is under statutory control. Night work for women, as the hon. Member knows, is prohibited and in the factory regulations made in 1959 there have


been improvements in this field both on maximum hours, conditions, and so on for women and young people.
I take the hon. Member's point that in introducing these regulations the Government of Hong Kong said that they were the first steps towards improving the standards of employment and bringing hours of work more into line with internationally accepted standards. It may well be that a further advance should now be made, and in response to the hon. Member I shall certainly inquire into the intentions of the Hong Kong Government about this, and perhaps we could have a word together later when I know more about it.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the trade unions. They are all required by law to register and with very few exceptions I believe that the trade unions are affiliated to one of two local federations. There is one, the Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions, which has the support of 91 unions, and another, the Hong Kong and Kowloon Trade Union Council, which, I believe, has the support of 108 unions, but I am told that the membership of the Federation is actually a great deal larger than that of the T.U.C.
From the employers' point of view, the inter-union rivalry, coupled with the failure of unions to get down to genuine industrial activity has created some difficulties in the matter of recognition; but I know that there are a number of employers who are reluctant to negotiate conditions of employment with trade unions—and that I very much regret. The Labour Department in Hong Kong actively encourages the development of collective bargaining. I am glad that the point has been mentioned today, because I will follow it up.
The hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne referred to the extension of the franchise and said that we should be a little cautious about this. There may be a great deal of wisdom in his advice. The right hon. Gentleman made a point about the town council, and I would inform him that eight of the 16 members of that council are elected, which is, perhaps, not as many as could be the case. The franchise is fairly wide and includes everyone qualified for jury service, teachers, taxpayers, and members of the defence and auxiliary forces.
I am advised that at the moment there is no general demand for broader representation. I am, however, conscious that the last Government announcement on the constitutional position and on representation was made by Lord Perth in Hong Kong in 1960, three years ago, when he was Minister of State. If the right hon. Gentleman could give me any evidence—I do not know whether he has any—that there is a widespread demand locally for a change, I will certainly have another look at the question. But I have no advice myself to that effect.

Dr. Bray: Will the hon. Gentleman consider the further point about the way in which the machinery is used and the type of nominations made by the Government, not to the urban council but to the Legislative Council?

Mr. Fisher: I will certainly consider that point, and I thank the hon. Member for mentioning it.
Reference was made to an independent television service. There has been a closed-circuit television system operating in Hong Kong since 1957 by a private company called Rediffusion Hong Kong Ltd., under a franchise. As far as I know there has been no decision about the introduction of an additional television service—which covers the point which, I think, the right hon. Gentleman had in mind.
The right hon. Gentleman also mentioned the case of Chan Kin Kin. He was arrested in connection with the round-up of a K.M.T. sabotage group. He was held for 13 days for questioning and then released. He is reported to have made allegations about ill-treatment by the police and about conditions in detention centres. These allegations were publicised in the Hong Kong Tiger Standard. The allegations are now the subject of an inquiry by a commission set up by the Governor for the purpose, and, in effect, they are sub judice, and I would prefer not to comment further on them. But they lead me to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Surrey and referred to by the right hon. Gentleman concerning the sabotage activities from Formosa.
I very much deplore the fact that Hong Kong should be used as a base for this sort of activity. The Prime Minister in-


formed the House as long ago as 14th February, in reply to a Question, that we are doing our best to stop this, and I believe that he answered another Question on the subject today. Unfortunately, I was not here at the time and I do not know what he said, and I do not wish to say something totally different. I will answer only on the departmental side, with which I can deal.
I do not want to be drawn into a discussion about the powers of the United States, which have nothing to do with me. The Government of Hong Kong are considering the prosecution of those implicated in such activities. I do not want to go into details, but hon. Members will take the point that security considerations have to be taken into account. One often gets better results if one does not publicise the fact that one has caught someone. I do not want to elaborate that.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: I, too, want to look again at what the Prime Minister said today, but I think that it was more forthcoming than it has been in the past. May I suggest to the right hon. Member that he should get the Foreign Office to obtain a transcript of all that has passed in the House of Commons, and all that has been said by hon. Members on this point, and should see that it reaches Mr. Dean Rusk and President Kennedy.

Mr. Fisher: That is a very constructive suggestion. This is not a party matter. We are all concerned about it.
I am glad that my right hon. Friend was more forthcoming, but as I did not hear what he said I had better not enlarge on it. I will certainly draw the Foreign Secretary's attention to the right hon. Gentleman's observations: what he suggested might be helpful. Nobody could resent the production of comments made publicly in the House with the request that they should be considered.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me to say something about the education and health services. A fair measure of the overall success of the public health services since the war is the fact that, in spite of heavily overcrowded conditions, no serious epidemic has occurred at any time. I am, however, concerned about the hospital bed provision. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, there has been a

great expansion, but I still do not think that the provision is completely adequate. In 1949, there were 11 Government hospitals in Hong Kong with a total of 1,750 beds and a further 2,000 beds or more in Government-assisted and private hospitals, making nearly 4,000 beds.
By the end of 1962 this had risen to 14 Government hospitals with nearly 3,500 beds, and additional hospitals, Government assisted, provided a further 4,500 beds, making a total available, including private institutions, of over 10,000 beds. I do not claim that even this is anywhere near adequate, but a large new general hospital will very shortly be completed. That will have a further 1,300 beds or more and will cost £4 million. The expenditure in 1961–62 on medical services was over £9 million. It is not as though nothing is being done.
A similar situation applies in education, the main problems being the provision of primary education for all children and secondary education for as many children as possible. In January of this year the Hong Kong Government announced plans for a new seven-year primary course, which will mean that the minimum age of entry will be 7 years and the leaving age will be raised to 14 years. I do not claim that this is perfect, but it is better. The last two years of this course will be in the nature of secondary education.
The House may like to know that the County Education Officer and the County Treasurer of the Hampshire County Council are at present in Hong Kong conducting an inquiry into the overall educational needs of the Colony and what they think should be the most practical way of filling those needs. I hope that this will produce something useful. In any case, total expenditure on education last year represented 15·7 per cent. of the whole of Government expediture. Expenditure has again been very substantially increased for 1962–63.
It is also hoped to make a start this year on establishing a second university in Hong Kong. I think that progress is being made and a good deal is happening in education, although I certainly do not want to appear complacent about it, because, good as Hong Kong is, no place is perfect, not even Hong Kong and there are many improvements, particularly in the social field, which could be made.
There have been many points to answer and I am afraid that I have been rather bitty and disjointed in jumping from one to another instead of making a more cohesive speech. I do not think that I have trespassed on anybody else's time, because we lost ten minutes or a quarter of an hour of our time at the outset. Therefore, I do not feel unduly guilty. If, due to lack of time, I have not covered all the points made in the debate I will certainly write to any hon. Member on any matter that I have omitted to deal with.
I only wish that we could have had a longer debate, but I am sure that Hong Kong will appreciate the very constructive interest which hon. Members have shown today in the problems and the wellbeing of the Colony. This debate is very much more important in Hong Kong than it is in the British House of Commons. I have certainly very much appreciated the opportunity which the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, West has given the House, because it has forced me to do a litle homework on a Colony which I do not know.
It has also made me very keen—I am sure that the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East feels the same—to visit Hong Kong and see at first hand a Colony which, I think, by common consent and general agreement in the House today, has been remarkable in that by efficient administration and sheer hard work it has solved many very tough problems in a very praiseworthy manner.

WELSH AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE

3.14 p.m.

Mr. John Morris: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to be able to raise the subject of the Welsh Agricultural College.
I recall that my first Adjournment debate in the House was on the administration of the Welsh Books Grant, and the debate I then had with the then Minister for Welsh Affairs, now the Home Secretary, proved to be a very fruitful one, in that since that time there have been very few, if any, difficulties with the administration of the grant following the Minister's statement on that occasion. I am optimistic, I hope rightly, about having a helpful statement from the Joint

Parliamentary Secretary on this occasion so that we shall be able to take good news back to Wales. I make no apology for raising this matter today. I have on previous occasions declared the interests of myself and family in Welsh agriculture and I am proud to have been associated with that industry throughout my life.
The past history of the Welsh Agricultural College and the events surrounding it is a long and shabby story. It is said that procrastination is the thief of time. It is also the thief of money in this case, and because of the delays which have occurred year by year this project has become more and more expensive. Let us consider the history of this matter. The Seaborne Davies Committee was set up in December, 1955, to inquire into this issue and reported in the following October. It may be of interest to hon. Members to consider the Committee's exact terms of reference because of what the Parliamentary Secretary may say in replying to the debate. They were:
To consider and advise on the suitability of offering two-year diploma courses at farm institutes in Wales, with particular reference to the applications made by the local authorities of Monmouth and Carmarthen-shire.
What is the history behind this type of agricultural education in Wales? Before the Second World War there were extensive facilities in Wales for agricultural education at Aberystwyth and Bangor. Then we had the Luxmore and Loveday Reports, and also the Murray Report; and in the end these Committees came down in favour of the segregation of agricultural education. There was, therefore, agreement on the need for a three-tier scheme for the institute, the diploma and the university.
I need not go into the reasons why these Committees came down firmly in favour of the separation of farm institutes and universities from the middle-tier; that is, the diploma courses. The Seaborne Davies Committee discovered that there were seven centres in England providing this education and three in Scotland. The Committee therefore stated:
To us it seems unsatisfactory that facilities in Wales should have dropped sharply (and not because of any decline in demand) over a period when the number of places in England has increased sharply.
They had, in fact, dropped so sharply


in Wales compared with the previous position at Bangor and Aberystwyth there was nothing at all in this respect.
The Seaborne Davies Committee produced its Report and one of the items it particularly emphasised was the need for a central plane in Wales which would have a special "pull" and would thus bring together the right type of students from the various parts of Wales. The Committee found that of the students at the farm institutes at that time, 20 per cent. had the calibre and aptitude necessary to benefit from education of this kind.
The reason for the presence of that 20 per cent. at the farm institutes was that those students were faced with one of two choices; they could go to England and institutions there for jobs or they could remain in Wales and obtain lower qualifications at the Welsh farm institutes. In this connection, the Seaborne Davies Committee stated:
There never was a time when Wales was in such dire need of retaining its best sons to better its own soil, nor a time when agricultural leaders require such a span of technical knowledge and could turn it to such immense advantage for their nation and industry".
At the same time, we had the Report of the Council on Mid-Wales. There was also the Report of the Welsh Land Sub-Commission. Both of those reiterated the grievous and tragic state of Wales in this connection. However, nothing was done about either of those Reports by the Government.
The Minister of Agriculture of the day used words which clinched the argument for this College. His words, which were quoted in the Seaborne Davies Report, were:
The answer is quite simply more and better technical education for the coming generation of farmers. I am absolutely convinced that this more than any other single thing will be of help to provide a long-term solution.
The Seaborne Davies Committee went into the question of scattering and diffusing the resources of Wales and came to the conclusion that a nation such as Wales could not afford this loss. In this connection, the Committee went into its original terms of reference in detail and I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary has noted the suggestion about the need to extend the facilities of farm institutes in Wales.
It revealed that there was a "pull" betwen the North and the South, and that if Usk was to provide these facilities the students in North Wales would look to Harper Adam. In the same way, if the facilities were at Glynllifon, students in South Wales would look to the Royal Agricultural College and Seal Hayne. Therefore, having examined the present form, the Committee came to the conclusion that, once we had had Report after Report like this, there could be no going back. It could not find any single ground of economy for preferring a farm institute to an agricultural college, and came down firmly in favour of an agricultural college.
Nothing was done, but in due course the Minister set up a working party to study the details. I submit that the acceptance of the idea of one college to provide the middle tier of education was implicit in the setting up of the working party. The only questions left are where it is to be and when it is to be established. As to where it should be, the unanimous conclusion of both the Seaborne Davies Committee and of the working party endorsed the idea of a national agricultural college affiliated with the University of Wales, sponsored by the Welsh Joint Education Committee at Aberystwyth, with an annual intake of about twenty agricultural students and coupled with a school of forestry with an intake of about twenty-five students a year.
These two bodies stressed two reasons for affiliating the College with the University—the preservation of high standards and cultural and social benefits to students, and also the possibility, though not much more, of pooling resources between the University and the College. Page 19 of the Report states:
We think it worth recording that we have been struck throughout in our deliberations by the enthusiasm for the project shown by those bodies who have a decided part to play in its success—a joint venture embracing the Central Government, the local authorities and the University.
Following this, Parliamentary Questions were put down by many of us and in particular by my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Watkins), and we also put down a Motion before Christmas. Year after year we have been promised a statement at an early date. I have gone into some


detail to trace the record of Government action in Wales. If ever there was an exercise in padding it is the paragraph written year after year in the Government's Report on Wales. Each time it is in a different form. Sometimes all the bodies consulted are listed at length, and at other times we are told that the Minister of Agriculture is in consultation with the Minister of Education, but always it reveals bankruptcy of action—nothing done except to re-write the paragraph.
I have complained that the section on Government action in Wales in reference to agriculture is becoming worse every year. I hope that there will be a better paragraph in the coming year. Everyone has been consulted on this; there can be no complaint in Wales about consultation on this issue. The Welsh Joint Education Committee, the Council of Wales, agricultural institutions, agricultural bodies—everyone has been consulted. indeed, this body has had such a long period of gestation that it seems to me that the Minister is turning to all these potential midwives in order to effect a miscarriage of the child.
I hope that in this debate the Parliamentary Secretary will tell us something about the future of the College—

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. James Scott-Hopkins): It might be convenient at this stage if I were to intervene in order to indicate the line of the Government's thinking on this problem. The Government would like—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Robert Grimston): Has the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) just given way to the Minister, or has he finished his speech?

Mr. Morris: I have not finished my speech, Mr. Deputy-Speaker—I merely gave way.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: We are very pressed for time, so perhaps I might suggest that the hon. Member should finish his speech and that the Minister should intervene later.

Mr. Morris: The Minister of Education told the Welsh Grand Committee that he would make a statement before the Christmas Recess. He was asked by

my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) which Recess he meant, and the Minister of Education said it would be the Christmas Recess. But nothing was done, and we have had no statement. Welsh agriculture demands a college and we cannot be fobbed off any longer with places in English colleges. For far too long Wales has had to put up with that sort of device.
Institutions, research stations and agricultural colleges are found in far greater number in England and in Scotland. We in Wales have a right to demand that a college of this kind should be set up in the Principality. I and other hon. Members went to see the Minister for Science about the suggestion that there should be an agricultural research station in Wales. The noble lord said that he did not want to proliferate these institutions; that he preferred to expand the universities and to provide facilities adjacent to and in conjunction with the universities so that these isolated institutions were not duplicated.
There is no argument on this ground here. If the Parliamentary Secretary says that it is desired to extend and expand the existing forms of institutions he is going in the face of every Report that we have had. They were not all Reports relating to Wales but Reports relating to the whole of the country. They came down firmly on the segregation of this three-tier type of education and it would be wrong for the hon. Gentleman to suggest—I am sure he will not do so—that there should be an extension of such facilities.
We have had delays, and the more delays that there are the greater will be the cost. If no decision is reached now another Minister may have to set up another working party to discover the cost of this institution. The only working party which the Welsh people would be satisfied with would be a working party of builders and labourers on the site at Aberystwyth actually assembling the bricks and mortar.

3.22 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Peart: I wish to support my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris). I congratulate him on his persistent advocacy of the need for a Welsh agri-


cultural college. As an Englishman who has to watch for the Opposition matters connected with agriculture, may I say that we would welcome a positive statement from the Minister announcing that there will be a new college at Aberystwyth. I have heard rumours that the Government will attempt to fob off Welsh opinion with an extension of an existing college elsewhere. But I can tell the Parliamentary Secretary that we shall not be satisfied. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will reconsider what he proposes to say today if it amounts only to the announcement of such an extension.
I should like to know who is responsible for the delay and whether it is due to a disagreement between the Ministry of Agriculture and the Ministry of Education. Over and over again, as my hon. Friend said, Committees have reported. Why has there been this delay? There is an urgent need in Wales for this type of education. We all accept that agriculture needs the services of technicians, and only through improved education facilities at all levels throughout the country will such technically-equipped people be obtained.
Here is an opportunity for the Government to indicate their belief in the need to extend agricultural education in the best sense. I know Aberystwyth, which I first visited during the war years. I have also family connections with the place. It is a great agricultural centre, one of the finest in the world. Many illustrious names in agricultural science are connected with Aberystwyth—Stapledon, Ashby and others. It would be an ideal site for a new college. There would be a link with the university. It has cultural and geographical advantages. Being in Mid-Wales, it could cater for the north and the south. It would be the best centre that the Government could choose.
It is not too late this afternoon for the Minister to say that the Government have decided to start now at Aberystwyth and that they will provide the drive and the energy which so far has been lacking. I warn the Parliamentary Secretary that, if he does not give a favourable answer, we, the Opposition, will certainly chase the Government in regard to this whole matter.

3.25 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. James Scott-Hopkins): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) for bringing this matter before the House. It is an important subject and I realise, as he does, that agricultural education is the key to better and more prosperous farming, particularly in the Principality. I appreciate the strong and sensible wish that agricultural education at college level should be available in Wales to supplement the present provision at university and farm institute level.
The hon. Gentleman ran through the history, with a slightly biased and jaundiced view, I thought—

Mr. Peart: No—factual.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I do not agree. What the hon. Gentleman said in running through the factual history was, to all intents and purposes correct, although he said that the Seaborne Davies Committee reported in 1956, whereas, in fact, it reported in 1957. The minimum capital cost at the time when the Seaborne Davies Committee reported was estimated at £50,000 for the establishment of a college at Aberystwyth. The Working Party was set up, with the Welsh Secretary of the Minister of Agriculture as chairman, and it reported in 1960. Its Report suggested that a college at Aberystwyth should cater for not only an annual intake of 20 dairying diploma students and 20 agriculture diploma students, but in addition, for a department of forestry with an annual intake of 25 students and a syllabus approved by the Forestry Commission.

Mr. Morris: Mr. Morris rose—

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: May I continue with my speech? I am not really quarrelling with what the hon. Gentleman said in outlining the history.
The estimated cost was very greatly increased when the Working Party reported. At that time, in 1960, the capital cost was estimated at £343,260, of which £223,170 was attributable to the provision of diploma courses and about £120,000 to the provision of a forestry course. The annual running cost of the college was estimated to be £37,670, of which £31,905 was attributable to the


same diploma courses and about £5,700 to the forestry side.
I accept that, between 1957 and 1960, there was an increase in cost. The delay was one of the reasons for it. Nevertheless, we are talking of very considerable figures, and it is only reasonable that we should look very carefully into them when considering spending public funds to this extent. The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) has attacked the Government for the delay in taking a decision, but I maintain that this is a very complex issue, and it is only right to look at it very critically when considering expenditure of this kind.

Mr. Peart: Oh.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: What I was about to say in my earlier intervention during the speech of the hon. Member for Aberavon was this. The Government would like to see an agricultural college established in Wales provided that this can be done at a reasonable cost. As I have explained, to establish an entirely new college for 80 students would now cost, so it is estimated, not less than £326,000, a capital cost of over £4,000 per student place. The Government feel bound, therefore, to take a little more time in examining whether the problem can be solved by meeting the requirements at a lower cost through the development of some existing institution in Wales.

Mr. Peart: Cheeseparing.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: One such proposal which my right hon. Friends are exploring is that the existing farm institute at Usk should be adapted to attain college status. If this happens, it would become the agricultural college and would not continue with its farm institute work, which would be transferred elsewhere, perhaps. It is thought that it might be possible in this way to provide additional student places at a cost less than half the £4,000 per place which the establishment of an entirely new college would entail. We shall be exploring the proposal in full in consultation with the Monmouthshire County Council and the Welsh Joint Education Committee. I am fully aware of the impressive and considered support that the proposal for a new college has received from the various bodies throughout Wales which the hon. Member for Aberavon men-

tioned. I do not deny that there has been some delay before we have been in a position to give an answer to the hon. Gentleman about this, but I deny that it was completely wrong—

Mr. Morris: The hon. Gentleman said that I was wrong in saying the Seaborne Davies Committee reported in 1956. If he has read the Seaborne Davies Report—and I hope that he has—he will have seen that it is signed by J. B. Foxlee, Secretary, October, 1956.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I have read the Report. The hon. Gentleman and I are a little at variance about the time the Report was published. That is the point between us.
I do not believe that it was wrong for us to take some time to consider whether or not this was a right decision to have an agricultural college in Wales. The Government have to consider the estimate of the student demand for an agricultural college in Wales, particularly in view of the decision of the University College of Wales to close down its dairy diploma course. As I have said, the Government would like to see an agricultural college established in Wales, provided it can be done at reasonable cost. [Laughter.] It is all very well for the hon. Member for Aberavon to laugh, but it must be provided at reasonable cost and it must fulfil its intended functions.

Mr. Emlyn Hooson: It would be helpful to hon. Members if the Parliamentary Secretary could indicate what the Government considered to be a reasonable cost?

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I have referred to the possibility—and it is only a possiblity—that the Farm Institute at Usk might be adapted. The cost would be about half the cost of building a new college, something in the region of £150,000, or £2,000 per student.

Mr. Peart: This is nonsense, and the hon. Gentleman knows it.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Indeed, I do not know it. This is far from nonsense. It may be that the hon. Gentleman is in such a frame of mind that he is prepared to throw away public funds right, left and centre, I do not believe that that is the right thing to do in the national interest.

Mr. Peart: The Parliamentary Secretary knows that no one wishes to throw money away, but we believe that money spent on the provision of technical education in Wales, particularly in Aberystwyth, would be money well spent. I cannot understand the cheeseparing attitude of the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I think that the hon. Gentleman is being unreasonable because the proposal might well be—I will not go further than that today—to provide dairy and agriculture diploma courses within the Principality. If they are provided, the purpose is fulfilled, and this is the object of the Government's studies. I am sure that this is an important point.
If a college were established at Usk, it might be ready to take diploma students in 1964. But, of course, this proposal, which would involve changing the status of the existing Farm Institute, can be properly explored only in association with the Monmouthshire County Council and the Welsh Joint Education Committee, which have not yet had the opportunity of considering the proposal.
I should add that under the proposals of the Local Government Commission for Wales it has been recommended that parts of the adjoining counties might become amalgamated with Monmouthshire. The proposal is that it should become the County of Gwent. That would be in the Principality. The Government envisage that, if the development of Usk Farm Institute is accepted as the best solution, the agricultural college will cater for forty agriculture diploma students and forty dairy diploma students as proposed by the 1960 Working Party.
In coming to this conclusion, the Government have been influenced by the need of Welsh agriculture and its associated industries for more better trained people with an understanding of the problems likely to be met in practice by Welsh farmers. The establishment of an agriculture diploma course, which Wales has not had for very many years, in a Welsh agricultural college would be an event of the first importance, both to education and to agriculture in Wales. We very sincerely hope that if this college can be provided at reasonable cost it will receive the support that we have anticipated.

3.35 p.m.

Mrs. Eirene White: I have heard feeble speeches from time to time from the benches opposite from Ministers who are batting on a sticky wicket, but I have never heard a feebler one than we have just had from the Joint Parliamentary Secretary. I do not criticise his manner, but I have never heard anything as indecisive or indefinite as his remarks this afternoon, after this matter has been going on for so many years.
After all these years of waiting, why do we still not have a decision by the Government? This is preposterous. There is not one Welsh Member who has not at some time or other asked Questions or made representations about this Welsh Agricultural College. I at least expected that we would this time have something definite, but all we have been told is that there are to be still further consultations with the Welsh Joint Education Committee and the Monmouthshire County Council.
What is to be the subject of those consultations? Every facet of this proposal has been examined microscopically over the years. The recommendations have been emphatic that it should be a Mid-Wales college, for reasons which any Welsh person can fully appreciate. I appreciate an English Minister's difficulty, but anyone who is familiar with the state of Mid-Wales—and I am glad that we have the presence of the Minister for Welsh Affairs—knows that we are far more deeply concerned about the future of Mid-Wales than about the future of Monmouth or Gwent. Everything we can do to vitalise Mid-Wales is something which we should support. The Minister is even worse than Dr. Beeching, who is, at least, allowing the railway to stay.
There are many reasons why I believe that any decision on Usk would be unfortunate. The way in which the proposal has been put forward this afternoon by the Minister indicates that the main concern of the Government is to cut down estimates. Also present with us is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education. We have hardly a speech on education from the Government benches without being told what wonderful architects there are at the Ministry and what marvellous work they have done in rationalising buildings. If they can do it for the schools,


what prevents them from being taken into consultation? If the cost per student place is considered too great, why cannot these gentlemen, of great experience, be called in to bring the cost to a level which is considered proper?
If I may speak for a moment in a housewifely way, one nearly always finds that to adapt existing premises to a different standard is likely to be unsatisfactory and very nearly as expensive as starting de novo with something which is tailor-made for its purpose. Furthermore, if Usk were to be turned into a different type of institution, what would happen to the students who are there now? Other provision must be made for them.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: There are other farm institutes in Wales where arrangements could be made for the students to go.

Mrs. White: That would involve the cost of providing accommodation for them.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: There are spare places.

Mrs. White: I would like to know where those spare places are to be found and whether they are places to which students would wish to go.
Although we are extremely anxious to have this agricultural college in Wales, preferably at Aberystwyth, for all kinds of reasons, with which anybody who knows Wales is familiar, we do not expect that only Welsh students would go there. Our experience at the university college at Bangor, for instance—the most Welsh of the university colleges of Wales—is that a large proportion of the students are from other parts of the country. Therefore, there is the strongest possible case, first, that a decision should now have been announced, and secondly, that it should have followed the recommendations which have been submitted, not by one committee only, but by a number of different bodies which have studied this matter, and that we should complete at Aberystwyth this nexus of agricultural study. It would I am sure benefit by proximity to the Welsh plant breeding station, and so on.
It seems to me most regrettable, firstly

that there has been no decision, secondly that the reasons given for that are so utterly inadequate, and thirdly that apparent intention is to have the college somewhere where many of us feel it would not be of the greatest possible use. I can only say that this has been the most disappointing speech from the Minister, and that I hope we shall have a further opportunity very shortly after the Recess to go into battle about this with all the Welsh cohorts.

EDUCATION (MARKET WEIGHTON PRIMARY SCHOOL)

3.40 p.m.

Mr. Paul Bryan: Before I start shooting my arrows at the Parliamentary Secretary, let me congratulate him on what I suppose was his maiden major speech from the Box in the debate on 25th March when he effectively expunged the caricature of British education pictured by the lion. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey). I did not try to catch Mr. Speaker's eye on that occasion because I wanted to get the undivided attention of the Parliamentary Secretary for the Market Weighton Primary School.
Market Weighton is the perfect community. In these days when we are bewailing the drift of people from the country into the big cities, there we have a small market town in the heart of the agricultural East Riding, a town which is actually attracting people from Hull and elsewhere into its own busy industries. Every day 150 people come in to work at Massey's, which is a progressive engineering concern, and at a knitwear factory. We get new houses going up every year; there are 120 going up this year to enlarge this thriving little town with its healthy balance between industry and agriculture.
Out of harmony, though, with this picture is the overcrowded 120-year-old school perched on the main Hull road, with 300 vehicles roaring by every hour, making teaching almost impossible, and every day a hazard to the children and a real nightmare to the parents. The numbers are increasing the whole time. In 1953 there were 108 students; today there are 150.
This population in the main school has


exploded into a primitive building about 100 yards down the road. It has no lavatory. Every morning when the school assembles for prayers they have to stack up the chairs and desks. The inadequate toilets are outside. Of course, this winter they were frozen up. There are only six wash basins and there is no hot water and there is no drying accommodation. The playground is about the size of a tennis court and, again, it is adjoining the main road, so that if a ball goes over the wall and the children go to get it there is danger for the children. There is no canteen, so the children have to cross the busy road and walk about 400 yards, in any sort of weather, to the village hall for their meals. As for the teachers, it is not only frustrating but it makes life harassing for them.
Six years ago a 5-acre site was bought for a new school. It is perfectly placed at the right end of the town, the developing end, next door to a housing estate. There was a fine new school planted for 250 children and a canteen for 175. Everybody had high hopes, but for the last three consecutive years this planned school has not appeared on the East Riding allocation. By now, parents are beginning to wonder—I think wrongly, but understandably—whether the Minister realises what the position really is. I should like to have the Parliamentary Secretary's assurance on this point. Also, I think the parents deserve an explanation, first of all, why it is that in this year's allocation the North Riding is being allowed to start three times as much school building as the East Riding. The North Riding is getting about three-quarters of its allocation. If we were getting that amount the Market Weighton School would certainly be built.
I understand that the whole programme for the country in general is not yet complete and that there is to be a review. I should like to know whether in this review there is a chance that Market Weighton may get its allocation this year. Market Weighton was, I think, sixth on the list originally sent to the Minister. I understand that it now lies second in the order of priority. So we have our hopes.
To encourage the Minister in this review, I assure him that the East Riding

is in a position to take on more building. I make this point because only last month the Minister said:
Some local authorities would be surprised and a few might be stunned if they were to receive all for which they asked.
I assure the Parliamentary Secretary that we in the East Riding would have been surprised but not stunned if we had got our whole allocation. We have got about one-third of it. If we had got half of it, we could have taken it in our stride, including the Market Weighton school. If we had received three-quarters of it, we could have done it, and if we had received the whole amount, we should have had a jolly good try. So I hope that the Minister will not be put off on that account.
Finally, I should like to ask my hon. Friend whether the system which we now suffer, by which authorities make an annual bid for the resources available, is the right way to do things. It seems to me that even in a good building year this system is bound to bring 75 per cent. disappointment, and this perpetuates the completely false impression that the Government are cutting down on education. This seems to me to be almost needlessly inept public relations when the truth is that this country is spending more on education than almost any other nation in Europe, and, in my opinion, spending it more wisely and with more thought for the individual child. Consequently, I ask my hon. Friend to look at the matter again to see whether we cannot do this in a less misleading way.
I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to give me the sort of answer which will win him quite soon an invitation to perform the opening ceremony at the new Market Weighton Primary School.

3.48 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education (Mr. Christopher Chataway): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Howden (Mr. Bryan) upon securing this opportunity to debate the school building programme as it affects his constituency and the Market Weighton Church of England school. There is nothing that I should like better than to be able to go to the opening of a new school in Market Weighton, but I am unable this afternoon to give him


exactly the kind of answer that he would wish.
We are very fully aware of the deficiencies of the school. Detailed information about the existing premises was first obtained from Her Majesty's inspector in 1959, when the project was for the first time submitted by the local education authority. The school then housed about 90 infants and 160 juniors. The numbers in January, 1963, were still 90 infants but 128 juniors, so that there has been some decrease in the numbers at the school during those years. But I entirely accept what my hon. Friend has had to say about the disadvantages of the premises. I know that the traffic noise in some of the classrooms is considerable, that the playground is inadequate, and that the arrangements for the taking of the school meal in the church hall leave a very great deal to be desired.
The project was first proposed by the local education authority for the 1960–62 programme. It did not find a place in the list submitted by the authority for the following year, 1962–63, though it has been included in the authority's lists of projects for the past two years but we have been unable to include it in our programme. This last year, it was placed sixth in order of priority by the East Riding local education authority. I am not sure what my hon. Friend had in mind when he stated that it now stood second. Its placing was sixth. On this occasion, however, we were able to include only two projects for the East Riding.
My hon. Friend knows of the priorities we have been working to during the 196065 series of building programmes. We have concentrated upon three objectives: first, basic needs, that is to say, the provision of schools for children who would otherwise have no school to go to; secondly, the reorganisation of all-age schools; and, thirdly, the improvement and replacement of secondary schools.
In the Market Weighton area, there is no new housing which would lead to an expectation of substantially increased numbers over the years. Therefore, we have not been able to allot to this particular project a high priority under the heading of basic need. We have, in the 1964–65 building programme, had to devote a good deal of our resources to the reorganisation of all-age schools which

will at last, and not before time, be completed during this year. I can, therefore, say that we do know about the conditions of this school, that we are anxious that it should be replaced as soon as may be possible and that we will bear very carefully in mind what he has said today.
There are three primary improvement or replacement projects which were placed higher in priority by the East Riding authority for the past year. I believe that I am right in saying that all three proposals are strengthened by an element of increasing numbers. My hon. Friend compared the East Riding allocation with that of the North Riding. It is true that, whereas for the former we have been able to include only two projects at a cost of £183,000, the North Riding has secured six projects totalling £620,000.
My hon. Friend will appreciate, however, that one is not able to give to each authority the same proportion of the projects it submits, because the conditions in each area may vary a great deal as, indeed, may the length of the lists submitted by each authority.
In the case of these two local education authorities, it is worth bearing in mind the very different school populations they have. The school population of the North Riding is about 59,000, whereas that of the East Riding is about 32,000. Secondly, there has been considerable housing development in the North Riding particularly along the North coast, and that accounts for the heavy concentration on basic needs, which, as I have said, must have priority.
Thirdly, as a matter of deliberate policy, in allocating the small number of replacement projects which it was possible to include in the 1964–65 programme, we gave priority to the industrial areas of the North. This accounts for the inclusion, for example, of the replacement of the school at Eston South Bank, Victoria, Eston being on Tees-side. The East Riding, however, also received one secondary improvement project, but neither authority has received a primary project justified entirely or mainly as a replacement. That is a measure of the emphasis which we have had to place this year upon basic needs and upon the reorganisation of all-age schools.
It is true that the Yorkshire East


Riding major building programme over the five years 1960 to 1965 has included, or will include, 13 schools worth more than £1,400,000. I appreciate that this will be no consolation to the parents and teachers concerned with the Market Weighton school, but I think that my hon. Friend will agree that it is an indication that very substantial work is in progress in the East Riding.
If I may make a minor correction in one of my hon. Friend's suggestions—that in the East Riding there would be no question of any project authorised in one year's programme not starting in that year—looking at the projects before me, it is my understanding that Hessle High School, for 1962–63, has not yet started. This could be for a whole variety of reasons and may not be the fault of the local education authority, but in a number of instances it happens that projects programmed for a year cannot be started in that year.
While we should like to be able to move faster over this particular school, there is substantial building in progress in my hon. Friend's local education authority's area and I hope that he will be assured that my right hon. Friend will bear carefully in mind what he has said both about Market Weighton and the wider needs of the East Riding

HOUSING ASSOCIATIONS (CONVERSION PROJECTS)

3.58 p.m.

Mr. Norman Pannell: I find myself in some difficulty in opening the case which I wish to put before the House, as at the moment there seems to be little opportunity for a suitable reply from the Government Front Bench, unless my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education, who is there at the moment, has had allocated to him the responsibility of replying to this debate.
I am grateful for the opportunity of placing before the House the difficulties which have been experienced in Liverpool in the formation and operation of a housing association formed under the provisions of the Housing Act, 1961. The House will know that Section 7 of that Act empowers the Minister of Housing to grant advances up to a sum

of £25 million for housing associations registered under the Industrial and Provident Societies Act which undertake to provide housing for letting according to schemes approved by the Ministry of Housing.
Subsection (8) of that Section specifically states:
In this section references to the provision of housing accommodatian are references to the prevision of housing accommodation whether by building new houses, or by the conversion or improvement of existing houses or other buildings.
It was in that aspect of housing associations that I was chiefly interested.
The House knows that Liverpool suffers from an appalling housing problem. There are over 40,000 applicants still on the waiting list, and in the Cathedral area of the city there are large old Victorian houses which have been used for multi-occupation in circumstances which have cause a great deal of dissatisfaction locally. Admittedly the Housing Act gives power to local authorities to deal with this sub-standard accommodation in multi-occupied premises but, for reasons into which I need not go here, the Liverpool Corporation has found itself unable to take any material steps in that connection.
I therefore conceived the idea of forming a housing association to acquire some of these large old buildings and convert them into reasonable accommodation with modern amenities, under the provisions of the Act. Before I took any positive steps in the matter, I had discussions at the highest level with the Ministry of Housing and Local Government and with the National Federation of Housing Associations, which acts for the Ministry in this matter.
The assurances that I was given were sufficiently encouraging for me to proceed, and I therefore gathered around me a number of prominent Liverpool business men, each an expert in his own profession, to assist me in the formation of this association. There was a leading lawyer, a prominent architect, a quantity surveyor, an estate agent, an accountant, and so on, so that I should be able to supplement my own meagre knowledge with expert advice, and all these gentlemen agreed to give their services free.
We decided to embark on the project, but we experienced tremendous difficulties in forming the Association in the first place. We were in constant touch with the National Federation of Housing Associations and with the Ministry of Housing and Local Government overcoming the difficulties in regard to the formulation of the rules which would enable us to take advantage of the loan provisions of the 1961 Housing Act. We were feeling somewhat frustrated by the time these negotiations ended, for it was not until July, 1962, four months after we had first discussed and decided on this project, that the Association was registered with the Registrar of Friendly Societies.
We thought then that the way was clear, and there came to our notice a house exactly of the type that we had in mind. It was an old Victorian house in sound structural condition, but needing a few repairs. It had been used for multi-occupation and the interior of the building was in an indescribably filthy condition. Anyhow, it seemed likely and possible that it could be converted, and we therefore took an option on the house, the cost of it being £1,650, on a 999-year lease—which appears to be the custom in Liverpool—and a ground rent of £4 per annum.
Having taken this option, we applied to the Ministry, through the National Federation of Housing Associations, for a loan to pay the purchase money. To our surprise the Federation queried our right to borrow under the Act. This was indeed a surprising development, because we had discussed our objects with the Federation and had formulated the rules in accordance with its advice after long and voluminous discussions and correspondence.
It had approved the rules, the effectiveness of which it now queried. This occasioned further long delays, much correspondence, and visits to the National Federation and to the Ministry. It was only with some insistence on my part that these difficulties were finally overcome and on 21st September we were advised that the Ministry of Housing accepted in principle the validity of our scheme and that the scheme qualified for loan under the Act.
We then prepared plans for the conver-

sion of the house. The object was to have three self-contained fiats with all modern amenities. Since there was an inside staircase it was necessary to provide an outside staircase which also served as a fire-escape. The total expanses on repairs and conversion were estimataed at £5,000. I am sorry to weary the House with these figures, but it is important to give them. To this sum had to be added the cost of the building, £1,650, and from the total thus arrived at there was deductible an estimated £1,200 improvement grant payable by the local authority. In short, the net amount was £5,450 and the anticipated rents were £460 per annum. As far as we could judge, this sum would be more than sufficient to amortise the loan under the Act from the Ministry of Housing of £5,450 at the then prevailing rate.
In our innocence we thought that the criterion was that if we could prove that this was a viable proposition from our point of view and that we could acquire the property and rent it at rentals more than sufficient to amortise the loan, that loan would be forthcoming. We therefore applied through the Federation of Housing Associations for loan approval. There was some delay in getting the forms, because this apparently was the first project of its kind under the Act. Eventually the forms were forthcoming and we completed them in support of our application for a total loan of £5,450 and an advance of £2,000 to cover the cost of the building itself and the initial expenses.
We had overlooked, however, and indeed we had not been aware or made aware of one significant point. Attached to the forms there had to be a valuation by the district valuer, and to our surprise the district valuer placed a value on the house after conversion of £3,000. It was impossible to argue with the district valuer, who was working within his competence. It is admittedly the case that buildings converted in Liverpool do not attract a high value, but it was surprising to find that the value placed on the building was little more than five years' rental. We did not think, however, that this would prevent the loan by the Ministry of the full amount for which we asked. Unfortunately, the Ministry decided that it could not advance a loan greater than the value


placed by the district valuer on the building after conversion.
We were therefore limited to a loan of £3,000, against an anticipated expenditure of £5,450. The gap of £2,450 was very unfortunate for the Association, because obviously the option would have lapsed long before if we had not taken steps. We had already purchased the building through one member of the Association who had done so on his own responsibility on behalf of the Association. Being fully committed to the scheme, we argued with the Ministry that it should change its ruling and grant a full loan on the ground that the scheme was viable in point of rental. Unfortunately, the Ministry found itself unable to accede to the request.
We had to think over the matter again. On 5th November, 1962, now some eight months after we first had the project in mind, and several months after the formation of the Association, a Ministry of Housing architect visited the premises we had purchased and, with the experts of the Association, a new scheme was drawn up. This time, instead of three self-contained flats, there would be six flatlets. This would eliminate the need for an outside staircase, although some modified form of fire escape would be necessary.
This new scheme had two advantages. The costs were reduced from an estimated £5,000 to £4,500 and a much higher rental income would be obtainable from the six flatlets than from the three originally intended. The case was re-submitted to the district valuer, and he agreed to increase the value after conversion from £3,000 to £3,750.
This was certainly something gained. We had reduced the cost of conversion and increased the amount which presumably the Ministry would now be prepared to lend, but, of course, the gap was still considerable. We were very much annoyed that we had not been able to obtain the whole amount that was needed for completion of the scheme. Another great difficulty arose. When the application under the new scheme was submitted by the Association through the National Federation of Housing Associations to the Ministry, the National Federation declined to recommend it to the Ministry.
This was a most surprising development, because we had got over this difficulty in regard to the former scheme, which was much more viable from the loan point of view than the one now submitted. This occasioned further lengthy correspondence and personal visits both to the National Federation and to the Ministry.
Months passed before any conclusion was reached. It was not until 8th February, 1963, that is, eleven months after we had met to form the Association, that these difficulties were overcome. We were invited to submit a fresh application for a loan but, as a pre-condition of the loan, the Ministry forwarded a schedule of requirements calling upon the Association to produce no fewer than twenty-nine documents in support of its application. I am not a legal man I do not know what documents would normally be required in these cases, but I am informed by a lawyer in whom I have confidence that in normal cases only five documents would be required and that the extra twenty-four were required apparently only by the Ministry of Housing's solicitors.
However, we eventually managed to supply all the documents required and then submitted the case to the Ministry for a loan agreement. At the same time, we put out tenders for the conversion of the building into six flatlets. The lowest tender did not differ much from the estimate. It came to £4,560 compared with £4,500 that the Association's experts had estimated. I do not want to weary the House now with details of the figures, but on the same basis of adding the cost of the building itself and deducting improvement grants we found that we needed a net sum of £4,900, against which the Ministry had agreed to lend us only £3,750. The gap, though much less than on the original scheme, was still £1,150.
The Association having no means of its own, since I was personally responsible for bringing these gentlemen together and giving them so much bother in the matter and since the Association was committed to the implementation of the scheme, I felt obliged to offer my personal guarantee for the amount that was still required.
An interesting point to note is that had the Ministry agreed to advance the whole of the loan of £4,900 which was


needed, the amortisation of that loan would have amounted to only £314 a year. If we added the ground rent and other costs, we estimated that the total outgoings would be £438 a year. That would include management expenses and ground rent, and the notional rental of £2 10s. a week, easily obtainable for the larger flats, and £1 10s. a week for the smaller ones would have brought in £702 a year, giving a margin of over £250 a year. Despite that, the Ministry could not see its way clear to give us a loan for the full amount. Clearly, if it had done so, we would not have charged the rents that I have mentioned; they would have been much lower, probably in the region of £1 15s. a week for the larger flats and as low as 27s. 6d. a week for the smaller flats. Since, however, we are now compelled to borrow a part of the money from other sources, the cost rents which we shall eventully have to apply will be significantly higher than that.
That is the whole story. It is now over a year since it was first decided to form this Association. The first project is not yet under way. It is very much to be hoped that there will be no further complications and that the loan, at least for the initial charges, will soon be forthcoming, but there is still no certainty about that.
Apart from the financial considerations, which are serious and disconcerting, the difficulties and prospects that have been encountered have been so formidable that those associated with the scheme, including myself, have been completely discouraged and disillusioned. There seems little prospect of embarking on any similar schemes of this character, and it seems likely that this project, conceived in high hope in an endeavour to improve the appalling housing conditions in Liverpool, will founder.
I think that what I have said demonstrates quite clearly that this part of the Housing Act, 1961, in regard to housing associations formed for the purpose of conversion, is quite inoperative—at least it is inoperative in Liverpool—unless the Ministry is prepared to relax its rules in regard to the amount of loans that it is prepared to advance. In view of the great need for accommodation at this time in Liverpool, I conclude by expressing the hope that

the Minister may consider steps to remedy a most unfortunate situation.

4.18 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. F. V. Corfield): My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Kirk-dale (Mr. N. Pannell) has outlined the difficulties which he has had in launching a scheme which we all agree has a very worthy social purpose. It was the merits of that social purpose which influenced my right hon. Friend and myself to take a personal interest in the matter from a very early stage. We were also influenced by the fact that, this being the first project of this type, we were particularly anxious that the whole movement of housing associations throughout the country should in no way be inhibited by unfortunate decisions over the first case. It was for these reasons that we took particular trouble to look into this in every detail and to be as helpful as we possibly could.
I should like to pay tribute to the immense time which has been spent by my officials in trying to help my hon. Friend in this project. We sympathise with his difficulties and we appreciate that in the light of the enthusiasm shown by my hon. Friend and his colleagues some of these difficulties are bound to seem frustrating, and perhaps unnecessarily frustrating.
But I must put on record the facts as we see them, even though this may mean some repetition of what my hon. Friend said. His first application was received by my Department on 17th October last year. I think that the Housing Association's application to the National Federation was dated 14th October, three days previously. I underline that the estimated cost of acquisition and conversion was £6,650. The loan applied for, after the improvement grant had been taken into account, was £5,450. As my hon. Friend said, the District Valuer's assessment of the value of the house after conversion was £3,000.
My hon. Friend has given figures indicating that the rental which he could reasonably expect to achieve would give more than adequate coverage for the loan liabilities on an annual basis, but in valuing property from a capital point of view there are other things to be taken into account. There is the general nature and character of the neighbourhood, and there


is also the expected life of that type of property concerned within that neighbourhood. If it is a neighbourhood which may be, to use the common expression, running down, it may well be that those rents could not be continued after, say, ten years. All these matters affect the valuation and must be taken into account. We should be wholly failing in our duty if we did not take them into account.
My hon. Friend suggests that his experiences indicate that the provisions of the Act mean that projects of this sort are ruled out in Liverpool. He knows more about the conditions in Liverpool than I do, but surely all that his experiences prove is that in a particular area, where the maximum figure which can be put on the capital value of the property after conversion is considerably less than the total cost, then the loan must be limited to the capital value. That, I suggest, is a set of circumstances which is bound to vary from locality to locality.
But I am sure that my hon. Friend agrees, and I hope that the House agrees, that we should put ourselves into a completely indefensible position before the Public Accounts Committee if we provided a total loan in capital exceeding the value which the District Valuer, with all his experience, put on the house after the conversion had been done.
As my hon. Friend said, the proposal was put to my right hon. Friend only a week after its reception in the Department. Being very reluctant to damp the Association's enthusiasm, particularly in view of the fact that this was the first application for a project of this size, my right hon. Friend gave a good deal of personal attention to it. As a result of conversations which then took place, the Association subsequently altered its scheme, as my hon. Friend said, to make a conversion to provide six flats instead of the three originally intended. To help my hon. Friend, an architect of my Department went down and helped to advise how this could be done so as to increase the value and decrease the proportion that the loan, or the required amount of money, would bear to that value. Even after this, however, and with a cutting in cost of about £800 previously allowed for a fire escape which it was now proposed to omit, the loan requirements were reduced to £3,650, but

the District Valuer remained of the opinion that the valuation could still not be put at more than £3,000. This I explained to my hon. Friend in a letter dated 20th November.
Then we had a second application, again based on six flats, which enabled the District Valuer to assess the final value of the house at £3,750. On the basis of that, apparently, an application for a loan was made for £3,770, the National Federation having passed the application direct to the Ministry because it felt that at that type of figure it was still not able to accept it itself.
Here again there was another difficulty, which certainly was not a difficulty arising in my Department, because when the plans were gone into, the application submitted, could not be reconciled with the plans on which the District Valuer had based his report. The description of what was to be provided differed substantially from his description. There was a discrepancy of over £1,000 between the cost of conversion as put to the District Valuer and the cost as put to the Department.
This inevitably led to further discussion and negotiations before we could consider a further application for loan. Most of these discrepancies were eliminated at a meeting between officers and my hon. Friend in his capacity as chairman of this Association and in correspondence which took up the period up to 21st January this year. The main saving was cutting out the fire escape on the strength of an assurance that the Liverpool Corporation would be content under its byelaws with a simpler and cheaper means of escape. Our architects advised that the scheme should not be approved until we were satisfied as to its compliance with the Corporation's requirements, not only with regard to the fire escape, but also with regard to precautions against fire and conformity with the other byelaws which might be relevant.
Nevertheless, instead of delaying further approval, and knowing that my hon. Friend had already been in the situation in which he either had to buy or miss this property, we approved the scheme in principle, subject to two conditions. These were, first, that any advances over and above the actual cost


of the property—that is, advances towards the cost of the work of conversion—would be dependent on the production of evidence that the Corporation's requirements as to byelaws and fire precautions were satisfied and, secondly, that the Minister's advances would not exceed the District Valuer's valuation of the property, so that any money required above that sum would have to be met from other sources.
On 14th February, in anticipation of the Association's acceptance of these conditions, we instructed solicitors to prepare a loan agreement. The solicitors were given the absolutely standard instructions to satisfy themselves as to title. It is very largely, if not entirely, the difficulty in doing that which has led to the subsequent delay.
I am sure that the House would agree that we should be hopelessly irresponsible if we did not satisfy ourselves as to title in exactly the same way as any other mortgagee would do. The plain fact is that the Association had bought a leasehold property subject to a covenant which was not consistent with the conversion and use of the property which it proposed. This is one of those covenants which probably, by negotiation, will readily he resolved; and I understand from my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Kirkdale in private conversation that his information is that this has either just happened or is about to happen. I am glad to hear that.
We should be in an indefensible position before the Public Accounts Committee if for one moment we advanced money on an incomplete title. In this connection, my hon. Friend mentioned that he had had about 29 forms. I do not know which forms are involved, but, having made inquiries, I thank that I would probably have to get in touch with the solicitors in Liverpool to obtain the list. I can assure my hon. Friend that when we compile, suggest or send out forms we are guided by a desire to make things simpler rather than more complicated. I was interested to receive a letter from another association, in which another hon. Member is interested, stating that it found dealing with my Ministry much quicker than

dealing with any of the ordinary sources of finance credit in the country.
I can assure my hon. Friend that of the list of forms I have seen a number of them are purely explanatory in content, designed to make it clear to the borrower exactly where he stands, before the final negotiations are entered into—something which I think is not done by most of the building societies and insurance companies to the same extent—and we hope that they are helpful. I can assure him that this is our objective and if either he himself or his solicitors will let us have a comment on these forms and an indication of those which they regard as time wasting, unnecessary or capable of simplification, we shall be only too pleased to look into the matter and to streamline our procedure, because we are anxious for projects of this sort to go ahead.
It is implicit, in a project of this or any other sort which involves borrowing money, first that the security should be right, and, secondly, that the title should be right. This is something which is, I should have thought, absolutely inherent in any ordinary business transaction. For the Government, with their additional responsibility as trustee for public money, to waive those requirements would be thoroughly indefensible. I can assure my hon. Friend that an enormous amount of time and a great deal of good will on the part of my Department has gone into helping or trying to help him to overcome these difficulties.

Mr. N. Pannell: My hon. Friend will realise, of course, that many months of delay were caused by his agents, the National Federation of Housing Associations, before the matter came to the Ministry. That considerably increased our sense of frustration.

Mr. Corfield: I appreciate that, but one must realise that if one puts forward to a Government agency, if that is the word, a proposition which involves borrowing nearly twice as much money as the valuation of the property justifies as a security, one is apt to run into difficulties. I do not want in any way to show any lack of sympathy with my hon. Friend's frustration, but I have been most impressed with the efforts which have been made from our end to help.
I feel that criticism directed at us, directly or indirectly, is unjustified. We


are, of course, always looking at any provisions in legislation that appear to frustrate what we wish to have carried out, but I cannot believe that we can go further in the direction of relaxing the security required or the title required. To do so would, in many cases, be to convert loan to grant. That is not the object

of the exercise, and it is certainly not that for which we have the authority of Parliament.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-four minutes to Five o'clock till Tuesday, 23rd April, pursuant to the Resolution of the House of 9th April.